EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 21, 1996

.0905

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the Sub-Committee on Bill C-3 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Today our order is for Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another act.

Our first witnesses are from the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees. I welcome Ms McLaughlin and Mr. Germani. I understand we have about half an hour. As you are probably very much aware, in that half hour you can spend as much time as you wish in making a presentation and perhaps follow it up with some questions and answers. I'll let you lead off when you wish.

Mr. Mario Germani (President, Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees): Thank you and good morning. Bonjour. We'd like to start by thanking the government and the subcommittee for listening to the affected parties before proceeding with Bill C-3.

We believe that no legislation that overrides a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and that will have a significant impact on labour relations and employees of Ontario and other provinces should be undertaken without the input of those affected.

The society has been representing employees at Ontario Hydro for over 50 years. Our membership of over 5,000 includes professional engineers, scientists and administrative and supervisory employees. Roughly one-third of our membership is employed in Ontario Hydro's nuclear operations.

It was the society's certification application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in 1986 that ultimately led to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that the federal government properly had jurisdiction over Ontario Hydro's nuclear operations. The society certified its nuclear employees under the Canada Labour Code shortly thereafter and negotiated a recognition clause with Ontario Hydro that covers all society represented employees at Ontario Hydro.

We have one collective agreement that applies to all these employees and we have enjoyed a constructive bargaining relationship with Ontario Hydro within this framework.

We appear today to oppose the passage of Bill C-3 and to express our views on the text of the bill as it now stands. The society knows the Supreme Court of Canada has in the past approved of interdelegation schemes that are similar to that envisaged by Bill C-3. Nevertheless, we find it unreasonable that the government is proposing such a scheme with respect to jurisdiction, which has been specifically held by the Supreme Court to be exclusively within the federal jurisdiction.

In 1993 the Supreme Court found the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations and nuclear operations governed by the Atomic Energy Control Act, which provides that these operations are for the general advantage of Canada.

Due to the declaration in this legislation, atomic energy undertakings are exclusively in the federal jurisdiction and as stated by Justice La Forest in the 1993 decision:

Labour relations are an integral part of Parliament's exclusive power to legislate in relation to declared works. No evidence is required to establish this.

But the court did go further and decided that significant policy considerations linked the regulation and oversight of nuclear power to the oversight of labour relations in nuclear operations.

These policy considerations should not be disregarded by this committee or the government. Chief Justice Lamer discussed regulation and licensing of nuclear operations and why it makes sense to have both regimes under the authority of the same government:

The various restrictions on who may be employed at the facility might be incorporated into the collective agreement.... The requirement that the collective agreement conform to the regulatory requirements of the statute, regulations and licence, might be relevant to proceedings to determine whether the parties were bargaining in good faith.

I draw these parallels not to suggest that the regulations will dictate the substantive content of collective agreements for those employed on or in connection with nuclear energy production facilities, but rather to show that the matters of concern to management and labour in drafting and negotiating a collective agreement are reflected in their regulations and that the interests of both cases are quite similar. As in the case with the AECA, Parliament's regulation of nuclear facilities under, the concerns of health, safety and security, includes a strong employment and labour relations complement.

.0910

Justice La Forest, in rejecting arguments that labour relations in atomic energy undertakings were not necessarily within the federal jurisdiction, went on to say, and I quote:

I next note the argument that the declared nuclear facility's fall to be regulated by federal authorities but only in relation to their safety and security aspects not in labour relations generally.... I find difficulty in understanding that argument because safety and security are as much in jeopardy from the manner which employees do their work as in the manner in which a facility is constructed, and, as the Chief Justice points out, many regulations of the Atomic Energy Control Board have to do with labour relations. The fact that these are established by one federal organism rather than another does not affect their character.

We submit it is proper that atomic energy be federally regulated. Federal oversight has served us well given Canada's history of superior nuclear technology and safety.

With respect to nuclear labour relations, it is clear the Supreme Court found these to be in the federal jurisdiction, not on narrow legal grounds but because there are important links between the regulation of nuclear facilities and the regulation of labour relations in these facilities.

We urge this committee and the government to consider these factors carefully before disturbing the existing regulatory and labour relations regime.

The Hon. Alfonso Gagliano, Minister of Labour, stated on March 8, 1996, that:

It is clear that two separate labour legislations applying to a single group of employees constitutes an exceptional situation. But while being exceptional, this particular and complex situation causes problems to the employees, their union and Ontario Hydro. These problems result from having to work under two similar but slightly different labour systems.

I would like to go on record at this time as saying that the society has been functioning without difficulty under these two regimes since the Supreme Court decision of 1993. I will assure you the society was not consulted prior to Bill C-3 being introduced and we would have expressed our objection.

As stated above, the society's recognition clause and collective agreement cover all the Hydro employees we represent. We are at home when dealing with either the Canada Labour Relations Board or the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We have not been inconvenienced by the need to take nuclear issues to the federal authorities. In fact, Hydro's situation is not unusual or unmanageable.

Many employers are regulated by the Canada Labour Code as well as provincial legislation. For example, airport operators deal with primarily federally regulated employees, but some of their construction operations fall within provincial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has found this to be the case under the Constitution, and airports have functioned under the regime without difficulties.

In Hydro's case, the corporation is at present the sole owner of Ontario's electrical utility. Hydro negotiates one collective agreement with each union. This means Hydro negotiates for both federally and provincially regulated employees at the same time. Ontario Hydro has given us no reason to believe it finds the current situation unmanageable.

Mr. Gagliano further spoke on March 8 of differences between federal and provincial workplace safety requirements and cited this as a reason why Bill C-3 is necessary. We respectively disagree.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision is relevant here. The court clearly found the regulation of labour relations was inextricably linked to the regulation of atomic energy. We believe Mr. Gagliano should be coming from the opposite perspective. If government is regulating atomic energy safety, it should or must also be regulating labour relations. Our members are on the front lines in maintaining nuclear safety and it is their view they should remain in the federal jurisdiction. We believe you should be listening to them.

Since its coming to power in 1995, the government of Premier Michael Harris has demonstrated a tendency to legislate away its problems. With the omnibus bill it altered the balance of power to permit its ministers to act without due process. It also reduced long-standing pension benefits for public sector employees so it could reduce its costs in downsizing. The government has repealed public sector successor rights, which have existed in Ontario for over 20 years, so that it might more easily sell off government services.

.0915

We note that Bloc Québécois MP and labour critic Réal Ménard also takes an interest in anti-scab legislation. We remind the Bloc members of this committee that Premier Harris's government has repealed replacement worker legislation in Ontario. It may interest all members of this committee to know that although the society, our bargaining unit, uses interest arbitration to resolve disputes, the replacement worker legislation has actually improved relations between the society and the Power Workers' Union while it was in force.

The self-serving use of legislation to serve fiscal and labour relations objectives has created a great deal of uneasiness among all Ontarians. As Canadians we are accustomed to working within established rules. The rule of law - meaning that everyone is subject to a stable and certain set of laws - is a fundamental precept of Canada's democratic structure. Traditionally, our governments have changed these rules based on public policy objectives and only after public input through hearings, such as today's, and legislative debate.

The Harris government has changed the way in which government conducts its business. The result has been growing unrest on the part of a wide range of social service and labour organizations and the general public.

The nature of Bill C-3 and the manner in which it would have been rushed through the legislative process if not for the intervention of NDP MP and labour critic Len Taylor is more typical of the Harris government methods than those of the federal government. It is apparent from the circumstances that the primary reason for the legislation is to enable the provincial government to intervene in or prevent a potential strike of Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro Nuclear employees.

Federal and provincial legislation provide a framework that has developed through the years to support good faith bargaining. When Bill C-3 did not proceed through the House on March 8, Ontario Hydro and the Power Workers' Union agreed to a two-month contract extension and are now sitting down with a mediator to bargain in earnest. This suggests to us that the collective bargaining had not been pursued to the fullest extent before March 8, based on Hydro's assumption that the government would be able to legislate all of the Power Workers' employees back to work.

Many of the parties involved in this issue have at one time or another, I believe, argued that labour relations at Ontario Hydro's nuclear operations should be provincially regulated. Nevertheless, we have all accepted the Supreme Court decision as representing the constitutional and legal framework we are subject to, and in fact it has functioned very well. We submit that the provincial government should also learn to live within this framework instead of looking to change the rules because this month the rules do not suit it. It is unfair to subject Hydro's employees and the Ontario public to further uncertainty in Ontario's legal structure.

We urge you to reconsider this intervention in Ontario's labour relations. Experts agree that the best solution to labour relations difficulties is to leave the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Providing Ontario Hydro and the Ontario government with an ``out'' for bargaining in good faith will only have negative short-term and long-term effects.

When we look at the text of Bill C-3, we'd like to congratulate the federal government for the attention it has paid to successor rights in Bill C-3. What would become section 121.4 of the Canada Labour Code under the bill appears to protect our representation rights and to maintain our collective agreement where regulations render provincial laws applicable and transfer oversight to provincial authorities. We are pleased the federal government does not share in the provincial government's disregard for long-established bargaining rights.

Nevertheless, we do remain uneasy about our successor rights, given the potential future shift in ownership of Ontario Hydro operations. At present, a merger of Hydro's nuclear operations with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is being considered. Would such a merger pop our employees back into federal jurisdiction? Would their successor rights then be maintained, given that the Canada Labour Code does not provide for successor rights for transfers from provincial to federal jurisdiction? If at some time in the future Hydro's nuclear facilities are transferred to private owners, will the government see fit to withdraw the intended regulations or repeal this legislation? In fact, what would our legal rights be in that case?

.0920

I raise these issues to point out that we must have more long-term protection for successor rights, but also to highlight the fact that it's not the right time to enact Bill C-3. Given that the Ontario government is currently examining different ownership scenarios for Hydro's operations, and also the potential merger of Ontario Hydro Nuclear with the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., should not the government wait until the future of Hydro's nuclear operation in Ontario is more certain, that is what the society believes?

In addition, we understand that the federal government is currently considering the Sims task force report, which proposes a number of changes to the Canada Labour Code. Any changes specific to the nuclear workers should be considered in conjunction with the overall changes to the code.

Another provision of the bill highlights the questionable timing of this undertaking. Proposed subsection 121.2(7), which I understand is intended to avoid the usual need for publication in the Canada Gazette for people who would be subject to legislative requirements, reveals the questionable haste with which the legislation is being rushed through, and possibly the purpose of the legislation. Does the government want to ensure that employees who would without the legislation be legally able to strike can be fined or penalized?

If one reads between the lines in proposed subsections 121.2(2), 121.2(6) and 121.2(8), which permit back-to-work legislation and the applicability of provincial fines, this would seem to be the case.

The anticipatory nature of delegation in Bill C-3 is also of concern to the society. We submit that in no circumstance should federally regulated employees be exposed in such a fashion to the vagaries of provincial objectives.

The reasons for this are abundantly clear in the current climate where provincial objectives are not consistent with the principles of federal legislation or the intended reforms of the Liberal government. If such a blank cheque is issued, an entirely foreseen outcome would be emergence of second-class citizens who are nominally under the Canada Labour Code but who enjoy lesser entitlements than other employees covered by the code.

Such inter-delegation will prejudice the employees of Ontario Hydro Nuclear, all of whom are now more favourably situated under the Canada Labour Code than they would be under existing provincial labour law.

One area where our employees would be unequally treated under the provincial legislation with respect to eligibility for representation.... The government of Premier Harris recently took away the rights of some professionals to belong to unions, professionals who are permitted to organize under the Canada Labour Code. Also, the Canada Labour Code specifically covers employees performing supervisory functions as opposed to managerial functions. This is not the case with the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Bill C-3 as drafted could result in challenges and long and costly representation hearings on the right of perhaps up to 1,000 of our members to be represented. We do not see any benefit to removing these rights of employees to be represented by a society, or in these employees losing their current entitlements.

We submit that the committee should ensure, if legislation is passed, that our ``legal place holder'' in representing these members be maintained. Anticipatory delegation would permit further unilateral negative action by the province without any requirement for prior federal scrutiny and any consultation with stakeholders. This would be essentially an abdication of responsibility on the part of the federal government for regulating labour relations in an area where in fact federal oversight has been held by the Supreme Court to be of fundamental importance.

.0925

Once again, we would like to thank the subcommittee for meeting with us today to listen to our concerns. I hope you now understand that our concerns are serious and important and should not be dismissed. We urge you to recommend to the government that it not intervene at this time and in this manner in provincial labour relations. There is no need for Bill C-3 from a labour relations perspective. Passage of this bill would only exacerbate the existing problems with Ontario's labour relations climate and could seriously undermine the regulation of atomic energy undertakings.

On behalf of all of our members who have a day-to-day responsibility to maintain our nuclear plants and in the interests of the Ontario public, who do not need or want further uncertainty and unrest, we believe that you should recommend against passage of this legislation.

We have looked at some of the advance submissions of other groups and we do support the Power Workers' recommendation that the Canada Labour Code be amended to make it applicable to provincial crown agencies operating in the nuclear field. I believe this would also get around some of the concerns that Hydro Quebec groups are also experiencing.

There was another group, the Society of Professional Engineers and Associates, representing engineers and scientists with AECL. I understand they were trying to make arrangements to appear before the subcommittee but were unable to do so, so we have provided a copy of their submission to you, which I hope you'll have a chance to go through. Looking at their submission, again, we would support their views that any redelegation should really be subject to the non-objections of all parties involved and that all the issues involved be thoroughly explored before any actions are taken.

At this point, we'd be pleased to take any questions that you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you for your very thorough presentation. We'll give five minutes to the official opposition.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): For the sake of our witnesses, I hope the meaning of what was just said was clear from the interpretation.

I have to say that your testimony disturbed me somewhat. Aside from objecting to the bill in principle, something that I want to discuss further with you, you have some questions about the manner in which the proposed legislation is drafted.

I would like us to review the problem point by point. You reminded us that you are here this morning to speak on behalf of 5,000 employees, one-third of whom work in the nuclear sector. We are examining a bill which proposes to cede back to the provinces the field of labour relations, after agreements have been negotiated between the provinces that have requested this and the federal government. The federal government claims that this bill has become necessary because in the past 50 years, the provinces have been the ones to regulate working conditions in the nuclear sector and that it is desirable for them to continue doing so. We in the Opposition find this totally logical and understandable from an overall perspective.

Essentially, you are concerned that Bill C-3, if enacted as it now stands, will disrupt the labour relations climate.

For the benefit of the committee members, I would like you to outline your specific concerns about eventual labour relations disruptions, quite apart from the fact that we have a hated Conservative government that you, along with many other Ontarians, would like to see replaced by another party that I will certainly not name here this morning. The fact of the matter is that the Harris government is in power and the federal government wants to cede back some authority over this field. I want to know what your concerns are from a labour relations standpoint.

I would also have two other questions for you later.

.0930

Mr. Germani: If I may, I will answer your question in English.

[English]

We in fact had been working with provincial labour relations for a number of years before the Supreme Court decision. However, since the Supreme Court decision was made, we have learned to work within the framework of the federal and provincial labour relations. In fact, they have worked very well as far as we are concerned.

As I mentioned in our submission, we did not have any involvement with any part or prior consultation of the drafting of Bill C-3, so we have concerns about the manner in which it was undertaken, the haste in which it was taken, and the lack of opportunity to provide input to the way it was initially drafted.

With respect to the government, whether it's a Conservative government, which is in there now, in fact.... Obviously we do have concerns about its current labour relations practices and perhaps its future labour relations practice. However, even under the previous NDP government, which was in fact perceived as being friendlier to labour relations, once the Supreme Court decision had been made, we made it clear to that government as well that we did not want the legislation changed again or possibly delegated back again to the province.

So even at that stage, two years ago, we did make it clear that we preferred to leave the labour relations structure as it was for our employees. So it wasn't simply a matter of the Harris government...although I believe the Harris government now has initiated this change, which perhaps would not have taken place otherwise.

Ms Mundy McLaughlin (Staff Officer, Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees): Just to reiterate a few points made in our presentation, in the current climate of Ontario we are not sure about the future of Hydro and what the ownership structure is actually going to look like. We think it would be wiser for the government to wait until that ownership structure is more certain before making changes.

With regard to the current government, we feel the federal government is actually getting involved in what's actually a bargaining issue between Hydro and the Power Workers' Union and that this is another reason why this is an improper time to carry this action out.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that the federal government will be able to get involved in the collective bargaining process between your province and your workers in the future. However, if the federal government does delegate responsibility for this area back to the province, as it is preparing to do, how could it then get involved?

[English]

Ms McLaughlin: We think the parties should be involved in working out the legislation. If this is going to happen, if it's really necessary, it shouldn't be done in a way in which the parties aren't all involved, and all the problems involved in federal regulation of nuclear and provincial regulation of labour regulations should be worked out in advance.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We're talking about two different things here.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, I think we have to move on to the government side. Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): You say this is not a good time to do this. My question is when would a good time be? I know that every time you go to do something there's always a better time to do it, whatever the issue may be.

But as I see this bill, what it is doing is providing a mechanism whereby the administration of nuclear power plants and facilities can be taken over by the provinces and run the way they have been run. I don't see any difference. The responsibility for nuclear safety and all of that is with the federal government. The safety and health of the workers pertaining to nuclear still remains with the federal government. There's no difference there.

Mr. Germani: In terms of timing if changes are going to be made, there is the Sims task force report, which in fact covers the whole range of changes to the Canada Labour Code. So that would seem to be a logical time - that if changes are to be made, they be done in conjunction with overall changes to the code rather than perhaps a piece at a time being picked out haphazardly. That would seem to be a logical time to make any changes to this regulation.

.0935

Mr. Proud: As I understand it, all parties involved were consulted. In fact, overtures were made to the federal government by the provinces to bring this piece of legislation into existence. As I understand this whole operation, it was at the behest of the provinces that this came about. We hear every day in newspapers and television that the federal government is involved in provincial jurisdiction and it's time we got out of it. I suppose what we're doing here is not getting out of it so much as getting away from duplication by giving the administration of this labour legislation back to the provincial governments. I understand that 42% of the Ontario Hydro employees would be in the nuclear facility and the other 58% would be in the general hydro operation.

Mr. Germani: Again, it should part of the overall changes to the code rather than a piecemeal approach. The timing is highly suspect, coming as it does in the middle of fairly critical negotiations with the other large union at Ontario Hydro. The timing seems to be quite suspicious and specifically aimed at that bargaining, which is why we're talking about the interference in the process.

In terms of the consultation, I repeat that the unions at Ontario Hydro, the people who represent the employees, were not involved in any discussions leading to this bill.

Mr. Proud: So there were no discussions whatsoever with any of the unions.

Mr. Germani: No.

Ms McLaughlin: We were informed in a meeting. We were never consulted.

What we are trying to say is that we agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court basically said, you have one arm over here regulating licensing in nuclear plants and another arm involved with labour relations. Labour relations are inextricably linked in that when problems arise in either area it's good to have one government that can see the problems and relate them to each other and make sure that.... Nuclear safety is obviously very important, but it helps to have one government that's regulating both. What we're saying is that if you're going to change that regime, you should be consulting with employee representatives as well as the provincial government to make sure that all those problems are ironed out. Then perhaps we would agree to this sort of legislation.

Mr. Proud: In your closing remarks you mentioned that if the legislation were passed you would like to maintain a legal place holder representing these members. Could you explain that to me? As I understand, the federal government couldn't give you the right to represent these people in perpetuity. It could give you successor rights for the time of the contract, but as I understand it, there's an open season when any other organization representing employees can come in and sign cards. Is that not right?

Ms McLaughlin: If you transfer us to the provincial jurisdiction, the provincial labour legislation isn't clear as to whether we would represent those people. The federal government is still retaining the inherent jurisdiction over these people. It's unfair to put them in provincial jurisdiction by regulation and take away their right to be represented.

Mr. Proud: Aren't most of the benefits in your contract a lot better than those provided by provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction put together, as far as wages and health and safety are concerned?

Mr. Germani: We're not only talking about the benefits in the contract itself. We're talking more about being able to represent certain people. There is a danger that this could be challenged.

Mr. Proud: You see, I just can't understand why you people would want the federal government representing you when the Province of Ontario is paying you and hiring you. I just don't comprehend it.

Ms McLaughlin: It's quite common to be regulated by the Canada Labour Code and not owned by the federal government. Ownership isn't really what we consider to be the relevant factor. It's more the issues involved in nuclear regulation.

Mr. Proud: The federal government will look after every issue dealing with nuclear.

The Chairman: I want to jump in here and thank the witnesses. You have certainly given us much to think about and to talk about. Thank you very much for your presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Before the witness leaves, I would like to make the following suggestion, given that Ontario Hydro has a major stake in this matter.

.0940

Since we have several witnesses testifying today, it isn't easy for us to discuss matters in depth with them. If my colleagues on the committee are amenable to this, I propose that we wrap up our examination of the last witness at 11:00 a.m.

Our witnesses alluded to the fact that they want the meaning of subsection 121.2(7) clarified. We have here with us today the public servants responsible for drafting the bill. If the committee agrees, I would like us to meet with these officials at 11:00 a.m. to discuss their interpretation of this provision that has prompted some concern.

Would you be amenable, Mr. Chairman, to our meeting informally, in an unstructured manner, to examine this provision with the official who drafted the legislation? We met him at our first meeting and I believe he is here today. Witnesses are entitled to get the legal clarifications they need. Therefore, I am willing for us to meet for this purpose from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll just speak on that to the best of my knowledge.

At the moment I'm chairing these hearings, so I'm not able to answer that. Perhaps that information can be got out at another section as we go along. Perhaps it can be fed into the hearings. Whether there'll be agreement to meet later or not I can't say, but at the moment we have to thank the witnesses and go on from here. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me for now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We mustn't get bogged down in procedure. Do you...Let me finish.

[English]

The Chairman: I can't speak for the -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: If you would allow me to finish. Is this committee prepared to go along with the request of 5,000 workers? After all, they are the major players here.

Let's take the time at the conclusion of this morning's meeting to sit down with the public servant who drafted the legislation to get the necessary clarifications. Don't tell me that you don't know when the meeting will conclude, because I know that. I want to know whether the committee is amenable or not to holding further discussions with the officials who drafted the bill? That's what I want to know.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, I can't speak for that civil servant. I have no idea whether the civil servant is here now at the moment or not.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, look, he is here. Is he prepared to go along with us on this? I think that's the least we can do.

[English]

Mr. Proud: Mr. Chairman, why don't we get the civil servant, meet with the two people involved there, go over with them and have him report back to you?

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Proud: We can continue on.

The Chairman: We have to continue on for now.

Thank you very much to the witnesses. I'm sure we're going into a huddle about this very shortly.

Our next witnesses are from the Power Workers' Union (CUPE, Local 1000, CLC). Perhaps Mr. John Murphy, the president, will introduce his colleagues and proceed with your submission.

Mr. John Murphy (President, Power Workers' Union, (CUPE, Local 1000, CLC)): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to start by expressing our appreciation for having the opportunity to make our presentation.

With me today are Chris Dassios, the legal counsel for the Power Workers' Union; and Ron Dugas, who's an elected representative within the nuclear sector of Ontario Hydro. I'm John Murphy, the president of the Power Workers' Union.

The roots of the Power Workers' Union go back to 1944. The PWU was one of the founding members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Canada's largest union, and continues its affiliation with CUPE, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Ontario Federation of Labour, and nearly 50 labour councils throughout Ontario.

I've been president of the Power Workers' Union since 1993 and I'm also a vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and a member of the Ontario Hydro board of directors.

The PWU has approximately 15,000 members working throughout Ontario. The PWU represents a large majority of the Ontario Hydro workforce and also represents workers at a number of municipal utilities throughout the province, as well as employees at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and other employees in the federal sector. Of course, Ontario Hydro is the single largest producer of nuclear energy in the country and would be the major entity affected by the passage of the proposed bill.

.0945

The PWU was one of the main parties to the litigation that resulted in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision Ontario Hydro v. Ontario Labour Relations Board. It is the effect of this decision that Bill C-3 is apparently intended to reverse.

The PWU at the time argued against the imposition of federal authority over Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities. The federal government fought steadfastly throughout in favour of federal authority over labour relations being imposed on Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the position of the Attorney General of Canada and held that only the federal government had legislative authority over labour relations at Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities.

The PWU argued against the Attorney General of Canada in the litigation because it perceived that administrative problems would have been caused by having federal legislation apply to Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities while provincial labour legislation would apply to the rest of Ontario Hydro. However, it became evident to the PWU, after it started living under the federal regime, that no such problems would materialize. In fact, they have not materialized. Ontario Hydro and the PWU have agreed on the scope of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and have had no difficulty living under the current legislative regime.

For the reasons set out below, the PWU believes Bill C-3 is unnecessary, misguided and ultimately destructive to the future of labour relations at Ontario Hydro. Legislative authority over labour relations at nuclear facilities is an integral part of Parliament's authority over those facilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada on September 30, 1993, decided that Parliament, and only Parliament, has legislative authority over the labour relations of employees at Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities. During the course of the litigation Ontario Hydro had unilaterally reorganized itself into distinct administrative units, one of which was Ontario Hydro Nuclear, OHN. The parties have read the Supreme Court of Canada's decision as applying to OHN. The Canada Labour Relations Board, in its decision involving a certification application filed by the society, has adopted this definition for the federal employer. Thus federal law applies to a discrete administrative unit within Ontario Hydro, and the administrative difficulties that might have existed as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision have not and will not materialize.

It's important to understand that the court found the legislative authority over labour relations could not be separated from the legislative authority over the safety aspect of the use of nuclear energy. In the words of the Chief Justice of Canada in the Ontario Hydro case, the Atomic Energy Control Act and regulations under the act show:

Parliament's regulation of nuclear facilities, under the concerns of health, safety and security, includes a strong employment and labour relations component.

He went on to say:

Therefore, I think that the domestic regulation of the production of nuclear energy demonstrates a strong federal interest in the employment of those employed on or in connection with facilities for the production of nuclear energy. Where those employees are unionized the federal interest extends to the labour relations regime which governs the relationship between the employer and the employees through their bargaining agent.

The Chief Justice also reviewed international law and held:

On the international level, then, there is a consistent recognition that supervising employment on or in connection with facilities for the production of nuclear energy is an integral part of ensuring the safety of nuclear facilities and materials.

Given that the highest court in Canada has found that the authority to legislate over labour relations at nuclear facilities belongs to Parliament alone and is a part of Parliament's authority over the safe use of atomic energy, the question arises as to why the federal government should wish to abdicate its responsibilities in this field in favour of the provinces and why it is doing so, in particular, at this time.

As we indicated above, the parties had no administrative difficulties in living under the federal regime. There is no problem that either the employer, the PWU or the government can point to in the collective bargaining history between the parties to suggest the current regime is not acceptable.

Given this, it is the position of the PWU that Bill C-3 is completely unnecessary. We agree a problem exists with respect to provincial crown agencies that operate in the nuclear field. Technically, no labour law applies to their employees because the Canada Labour Code does not apply to provincial crowns. However, this problem could be remedied quite simply by amending the code so that it does apply to such entities. The federal government can thus remedy this problem without abdicating its authority in the field. The PWU would support such an amendment.

.0950

Apart from this, there is simply no warrant to interfere with a legal regime that has been working. As indicated above, the parties have not experienced any difficulty in living under the current regime. Moreover, such interference would be worse than unnecessary; it would be destructive of labour relations at the largest utility in North America.

It's no secret that Ontario Hydro and the Power Workers' Union have been going through a difficult set of collective bargaining negotiations. While the current collective agreement has been extended to the end of May, those negotiations will recommence in the near future. To inject new uncertainty into these negotiations would hardly assist the parties in reaching a collective agreement. This uncertainty would arise from removing the labour relations of nuclear facilities from the stable federal legislative sphere and putting them into a provincial legislative regime with an uncertain future.

It's also no secret that the current provincial government in Ontario has made a point of stripping employees and their bargaining representatives of their statutory rights. One of the first bills the Harris government enacted upon taking power had the effect of watering down the Ontario Labour Relations Act, eliminating rights that trade unionists had held for up to 50 years.

Furthermore, the government exempted itself from the pension benefits legislation that applies to all workers in the province, thereby reducing the pension entitlements of its own employees.

This same government also stripped its own employees of their successor rights, meaning that when the government sells part of its operations, its employees will have no right to a job with the new employer and the union's bargaining rights and collective agreement will not bind the new employer.

In the circumstances, it is fair to describe the current provincial government's approach to labour in the province as being an attack.

Why would the federal government want to turn over legislative authority over labour relations at Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities to such a government at such a time of instability and change?

It is obvious that the federal government understands that it has some role to play in respect of the lives of Ontario Hydro Nuclear employees. For example, Bill C-3 does not purport to exempt Ontario Hydro Nuclear from federal employment equity legislation, which is appropriate since the Harris government recently repealed the Employment Equity Act in Ontario. But why should the federal government accept responsibility of employment equity at nuclear facilities and yet turn over labour relations to the provincial government? Is the right to orderly collective bargaining on a level playing field any less important than the right to employment equity?

If Bill C-3 were to be passed, it would be a very simple matter for the current government to strip the PWU and its nuclear members of their successor rights and their pension rights, as the government did with its own employees.

Indeed, Bill C-3 in its current form would allow the federal government to pass regulations that would make provincial amendments such as those that apply automatically to OHN without the federal government so much as reviewing the impact that such amendments might have on nuclear facilities. The injection of this uncertainty into the working lives of Ontario Hydro Nuclear employees will only exacerbate an already difficult situation and perhaps precipitate unnecessary conflict. The current sense that Ontario Hydro employees have of being immune from the instability of provincial labour relations will be gone.

Furthermore, the current provincial government has already demonstrated its willingness to act unlawfully in order to achieve its ends in respect of Ontario Hydro. Two months ago the Minister of Energy purported to fire five of the directors of Ontario Hydro. Without exception, the five, such as myself, had ties to trade unions, environmental groups, or Liberal or New Democratic parties. The action was taken on the eve of a very important Ontario Hydro board of directors meeting that was to determine Ontario Hydro's position with respect to the privatization of the utility. The firings would have removed from the board vocal opponents of privatization.

The Ontario Court of Justice, however, found that the conduct of the government in this regard was unlawful and reinstated the board members. However, the action demonstrated that the provincial government's attitude towards the employees of Ontario Hydro is no less unfair than its attitude towards its own employees or the employees in the province in general.

.0955

For the federal government to suggest that the people of Ontario elected the current government and therefore it's legitimate to delegate authority to that government is to miss the point. The people of Canada did not elect Mike Harris. It's the people of Canada who elected the current federal government and it is that government, and only that government, that has constitutional authority with respect to nuclear facilities in Canada.

Nobody has ever doubted the federal government's sole authority over atomic energy in Canada. It is the Government of Canada, and only the Government of Canada, that can regulate nuclear facilities, because nuclear energy is a matter that transcends provincial borders and it is of importance to the country as a whole.

Parliament cannot justify the proposed delegation on the basis that the Government of Ontario is duly elected. It must answer the question of why Parliament should give away its authority to another level of government that the Supreme Court has held does not have that authority. We suggest there is no satisfactory reason for doing so.

We understand that the proposals to merge OHN and AECL are being studied. Such a merged agency would be under federal legislative authority and the Canada Labour Code would apply, we are told by Department of Labour staff. Given this possibility, there is no point in putting labour relations over OHN into provincial hands when the whole process might have to be reversed in the near future. Surely no decision should be made regarding the federal authority over labour relations at nuclear facilities until a final decision on a new federal agency is made.

Furthermore, the advisory committee on competition in Ontario's electricity system, the Macdonald committee, will be releasing its final report on April 30, 1996. The report will make recommendations on the future of Ontario Hydro, including Ontario Hydro Nuclear, and will no doubt have a dramatic impact on the future of Ontario Hydro Nuclear, including whether public ownership will continue. To enact Bill C-3 prior to this report's issuance and implementation would be to give up federal authority in the area at a time when the federal government cannot know what the province has in mind for Ontario Hydro Nuclear or whether such plans will be in line with the federal interests in the safe use and operation of nuclear facilities.

Moreover, as indicated above, the current climate with respect to labour relations at the provincial level in Ontario is hardly conducive to stable and rational regulation of nuclear facilities. The federal government should not throw Ontario Hydro Nuclear into the current battleground of labour relations in Ontario. To pass Bill C-3 now would not only be unnecessary and destructive of labour relations, but also precipitous.

In conclusion, we were told two years ago by provincial ministry of labour officials, at a meeting to discuss the possibility of the delegation of federal authority, that the provincial government would not pursue such an option if the PWU did not desire it. We informed them at the time that we did not desire it.

Our opposition to such legislation is steadfast for the reasons set out above. Yet the federal government proposes to proceed with this law in the face of such opposition. We submit that it's unnecessary, inappropriate and discriminatory to have the Canada Labour Code apply to all employees within the federal authority except those who work at nuclear facilities, which is the one group of employees the Supreme Court has stated must have their labour relations regulated federally, as part of Parliament's authority to assure the safety of nuclear facilities and materials.

If I could just digress from the formal presentation, I spent about 12 years as an elected representative within Ontario Hydro. I've been to Ottawa on a regular basis when the licences have come up for renewal before the Atomic Energy Control Board. The Atomic Energy Control Board, the federal agency whose task it is to ensure public and employee safety, have consistently over that 12 years told us and Ontario Hydro that the single most important element of nuclear safety, of protecting public safety in operating nuclear power plants, is the human element, and that in the whole issue of labour relations within a nuclear power environment there is nothing more important than maintaining public and employee safety.

Furthermore, the government proposes not only to adopt provincial law as it now stands, but also to allow the provinces to unilaterally amend their laws and have such amendments automatically applied to nuclear employees. This is an unusual method of incorporation, which effectively gives carte blanche to the provincial governments over labour relations at nuclear facilities.

.1000

This is close to a complete abdication of federal authority in the field. While the federal government could become involved after the provincial amendment and repeal its effects, it may be too late at that stage. Surely even if the federal interest in the safe operation of nuclear operations permits the incorporation of provincial law as it now stands - we contend that it does not - that interest would require that further amendments to provincial law be analysed by the federal government in light of its interests before they be incorporated and applied to the nuclear facilities.

We urge the committee to recommend that Bill C-3 not be enacted but that the Canada Labour Code be amended to make it applicable to provincial crown agencies operating in the nuclear field.

I have one other digression from the formal submission. When the decision was made that nuclear workers would be under federal jurisdiction, one of the important considerations that had to be given was a lengthy phase-in so the transfer of our rights would not happen overnight. At a minimum, if the committee chooses to reject what I think are very sound reasons for not having Bill C-3 proceed, I would appeal to the committee members to recognize that a lengthy implementation period of as much as six months would be helpful to all parties to prepare for any potential change in regulation.

Thank you very much for your attention.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We will now proceed to questions and start off with the official opposition.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It is important to take the time we need to listen to the witnesses and to give them the information they require.

There is one thing that I would like to understand. Before the Supreme Court's ruling, and this is something both witnesses spoke about, the four Canadian provinces had authority over labour relations. Each of the affected provinces has therefore been acquiring expertise in this area for the past 50 years. Am I right? That is my analysis of the bill as a member of the Official Opposition.

[English]

Mr. Murphy: I think it is correct to say that we did have provincial control over our nuclear facilities in terms of labour relations up to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. For quite a number of years now we've had federal jurisdiction of labour relations within our nuclear facilities. So we've actually seen how both operate, and what we're saying is that to change from federal regulation back to provincial jurisdiction would be extremely damaging, for all the reasons we outlined.

Mr. Christopher Dassios (Legal Counsel, Power Workers' Union): I'd like to add something to that. It's important to understand that the original decision at the Ontario Labour Relations Board was in 1988. The federal government took the matter to litigation at the highest court, which rendered its decision in 1993. During that period of time, Ontario Hydro reorganized itself into distinct utilities within one corporate structure. Ontario Hydro Nuclear didn't exist in 1988. It was much more difficult, for example, to divide up anything with respect to nuclear and non-nuclear.

The state of affairs in 1993, currently, and for as far into the future as we can see is that there is a distinct arm of Ontario Hydro, which is Ontario Hydro Nuclear, that does everything distinctly, right up to having a head. While administrative problems might have existed given the old Hydro, the new Hydro is in a state where there are no administrative problems to applying federal law to one arm and not another.

One of the earlier questions that was posed was how can you tolerate having federal law apply to part of Hydro and not another? I put it to you this way: if you had a defence contractor that also ran a series of restaurants somewhere, the defence part of it might be federal, the restaurants would be provincial. There are many companies that operate in a field like that. For example, airport authorities are under provincial law when they build the airport and under federal law when they operate it.

.1005

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We felt in fact that this was not a desirable situation. I am surprised to hear you say, given that you represent workers, like the previous witness, that in a work unit, regardless of its nature - and I am talking here about nuclear energy and the corporation that you represent - you have no problem living under a dual labour relations regime. However, despite the shortcomings of the bill as it is now drafted - amendments can be put forward - we feel it would be best if only one level of government had jurisdiction over labour relations, the exception being the safety regulations that apply to the handling of hazardous products and to nuclear energy. Wouldn't it be preferable if labour relations came under one single authority?

I am truly surprised to hear the statements of certain witnesses, considering that we support a redelegation of powers to the provinces. The federal government wants to cede back to the provinces authority over labour relations at nuclear facilities and here you are this morning telling us that you believe the bill is unnecessary and that, above all, it will poison labour relations. I have a great deal of difficulty accepting your position, but I am very open-minded. Perhaps I don't have all of the information. For the past 50 years, we have had a centralist federal government that has encroached upon other jurisdictions and now that a bill has been brought before Parliament, some of you are advocating the opposite situation. Even the unions whom I believed to be forward-looking are asking us to reject the bill. I would like you to explain to me what it really is you want us to do.

[English]

Mr. Murphy: I understand fully the need to delegate authority from the federal government back to the provinces. But I think there are some situations where there need to be exceptions. I think this is one example where we need to have an exception.

As an example, I think everybody agrees that the issue of licensing and controlling safety within the nuclear plants should remain a federal responsibility, right? I don't think there's disagreement on that.

An exact extension of that is to understand that the issue of managing labour relations, the type of labour relations environment you have within the plant, is in fact the most important safety factor. So if it makes sense for the federal government to say that nuclear safety is a national issue rather than a provincial issue, and has to be regulated nationally, then it also makes sense to understand and support that labour relations within the nuclear environment should also be a national issue as well.

We have also the fact that the reason why this is occurring right now is precisely to do with the issue of Power Workers' Union negotiations and Ontario Hydro.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: The link between labour relations, such as collective agreements, social benefits and positions, something that you know more about than I do as a founding member of a union, and the handling of hazardous products and the issue of safety at nuclear facilities is not as obvious as that. Can you tell us specifically why you feel the members of this committee should view these two components as inseparable as far as your workers are concerned? Give us some examples to help us understand you point of view.

[English]

Mr. Dassios: You only need look at Chief Justice Lamer's decision in the Supreme Court of Canada to understand the link, because he goes through it in detail.

For example, when talking about the regulations under the Atomic Energy Control Act, he says:

Part IV, the general part of the regulations, imposes several employment-related obligations on licensees, including providing appropriate safety equipment and clothing, and providing adequate warning to any person (which would include employees) who may be affected by an escape of radioactive material. Employees are under similar obligations to observe safety procedures and use safety equipment and clothing.

How can that be separated from the occupational health and safety aspects of the work and the collective agreement when they're talking about safety clothing and safe working practices in the Atomic Energy Control Act regulations?

He goes on:

An employee's failure to use the required safety equipment...

.1010

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Why would there be no mention of this in the collective agreement? I don't understand. On the one hand, you are telling us that the collective agreement will continue to apply, that rights will be vested and that successor rights will be transferred, while on the other hand, you are saying that some safety aspects will not be covered in the collective agreement.

[English]

Mr. Dassios: No. He's talking about two things. He's talking about the employment-related obligations in the Atomic Energy Control Act regulations, which have to interface with the occupational health and safety provisions in the Canada Labour Code.

They also affect the collective agreement. You have to recall that if there's an unfair labour practice complaint arising from matters pertaining to the collective agreement, it has to go to a labour board. So the collective agreement may continue, but there's still labour board supervision of that collective agreement and so it can't be written off completely.

But he goes on to say:

An employee's failure to use the required safety equipment, or to observe required safety procedures, could be the subject of discipline covered by the collective agreement. The labour relations board might have to distinguish between a legitimate plant shut-down and an illegal lock-out during a labour dispute. The requirement that the collective agreement conform to regulatory requirements of the statute, regulations and licence might be relevant to proceedings to determine whether the parties were bargaining in good faith.

- Again, it's a labour board, a labour code, or a labour relations act matter -

Other examples of the mutual concerns in the regulations and most collective agreements are not difficult to anticipate.

Then he goes on. He does the same thing with the licences issued by the AECB and points out how those licences contain conditions that of necessity must interface with the Canada Labour Code. He does the same thing with international regulations.

So he gives you the concrete examples you're asking for. The essence of his reasons - his were the narrowest reasons supporting federal authority in the area. That's why we quote from them, to be scrupulously conservative on the issue.

He says the two things of labour relations and nuclear safety are inextricably tied and they have to be dealt with by the same level of government to avoid conflict between the two.

The Chairman: Thank you for that answer.

We'll proceed to the government side for the next questions, please, if you have any.

Mr. Proud: I want to ask a question first of all and then make a statement. The question would be: if this were this time last year, would you be here?

Mr. Murphy: Yes. Absolutely.

Mr. Proud: The statement I want to make is that we say the federal government would become a party to the Ontario government's anti-labour agenda. I don't agree with that, because what we're presently looking at is three other provinces: New Brunswick, Quebec and Saskatchewan.

So it isn't just this particular piece that is dealing with Ontario Hydro. There's the potential to deal with three other provinces. Again, I go back to my point earlier. I believe if there's any way we can streamline an operation without putting anything in danger - and that's something we're not doing.... In no way are we putting anybody in danger from nuclear facilities, because the federal government is still responsible for that, and what this does is provide the mechanism to administer the act. That's what I don't understand, why there's so much opposition to it.

I agree with you. The labour relations in your particular province at this time - you know, we've seen greater ones across the country, and I don't agree with that totally at all.... But I think the point is that as a federal government, as Mr. Ménard said a few minutes ago, we've been talked to and about for years and years in that we've centralized things. We're now trying to simplify and to streamline things. I think this has no danger whatsoever for anybody, and that's my own personal opinion.

Mr. Murphy: As I said earlier, I understand and I support the need to have more efficient operations and to delegate authority where it makes sense. But in this particular instance, all of the international literature associated with nuclear power suggests the most important ingredient is the human element. There's no dispute in that.

Mr. Proud: No.

Mr. Murphy: Your own federal regulators for atomic energy have said consistently that the issue of labour relations and the human aspect is the most critical one in the nuclear facility. If we could try to find the grounds on which we agree, we agree that at this particular time in the province of Ontario we have a very hostile labour relations environment. We're at a very critical time in terms of negotiations between the PWU and Ontario Hydro.

So to take Ontario Hydro Nuclear workers and put them into this hostile regime, given the fact that we all agree, I think, that labour relations and the human element is the number one nuclear safety issue - I think that's the crux of the problem we have in terms of Bill C-3.

.1015

Mr. Proud: You also said that if we decide after all the evidence is presented to us to go ahead with this, you'd ask for an implementation process to be stretched out over -

Mr. Murphy: At least a six-month period to allow a number of things. It would allow the Donald Macdonald committee to make its report so we don't go through a huge change for Ontario Hydro Nuclear employees and then perhaps have to change them again. It would allow some time for the assessment to be made as to whether or not there's going to be this merger between Ontario Hydro Nuclear and Atomic Energy of Canada into a new agency. It would allow us to get through without interference to complete the process of collective bargaining for the PWU.

The federal staff who have been involved have been extremely helpful, as have the provincial staff who have been involved in that process. It would allow that to be complete. Then, finally, it would also allow a notification period for all of the parties to prepare for the transfer of regulation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy, Chris and Ron, for your presentation.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity.

The Chairman: We'll ask the witnesses to wait for a couple of minutes for our committee to have a time out for two or three minutes. Thank you.

.1016

.1025

The Chairman: We resume our hearings on Bill C-3.

Our next witnesses I want to welcome are from the Syndicat professionnel des ingénieurs d'Hydro-Québec.

Monsieur Champagne, I'll ask you to introduce your colleague. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Champagne (President, Syndicat professionnel des ingénieurs d'Hydro-Québec): I would like to introduce Georges Loiselle, who is a representative of the Gentilly-2 nuclear plant. My name is Louis Champagne and I am the President of the Syndicat professionnel des ingénieurs d'Hydro-Québec.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share our views with you today. The Syndicat professionnel des ingénieurs d'Hydro-Québec represents over 1,500 engineers employed by the Crown corporation. Our members work in such areas as planning, engineering, construction and the operation of Hydro-Québec generating, transportation and distribution systems.

Our union represents only those engineers who are members of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. However, one unique feature of our union is that we also represent engineers who are first-level managers within the organization. We were legally certified by the National Assembly in 1970 to act as their bargaining agent.

We also represent engineers working in the nuclear sector. This has been the case from the time Hydro-Québec first started planning to construct nuclear facilities. At present, Hydro-Québec's nuclear operations are confined to the Gentilly-2 plant. Over 100 engineers currently work at this facility and this number has remained fairly constant over the years.

The Supreme Court's 1993 ruling radically changed, and perhaps even disrupted, the working conditions of these engineers. Whereas they had always been represented by a union fully involved in the activities of their corporation, they suddenly found themselves cut off. Their bargaining regime, their collective agreement and all of their working conditions were now regulated by the Canada Labour Code and this was only the beginning of their problems.

Indeed, even if we had been able to form a new union covered by the Canada Labour Code, it appeared that it was no longer possible for us to continue representing the managers that we had always represented. The rights of these individuals were irrevocably affected since, as I indicated, we had been legally certified to represent first-level managers.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the claim to the contrary in the Supreme Court ruling, Hydro-Québec's legal status stood to be a major problem for us. Hydro-Québec is an agent of Her Majesty in right of the province of Quebec and this status shields it in some respects from federal laws, but at the same time deprives engineers and employees of the Gentilly-2 nuclear plant of their union rights.

In terms of the Canada Labour Code, these employees find themselves in a legal vacuum, where their rights are being shifted from the collective to the individual field. This situation has been confirmed by all of the courts to which we have taken this matter. This includes the Federal Court of Appeal and even the Supreme Court of Canada which refused to hear our appeal.

Practically speaking, labour relations at the Gentilly-2 plant are no longer covered by one law in particular. Under the circumstances, none of the activities targeted by the Canada Labour Code are covered, whether it be bargaining, grievances, lockouts or strikes. Legal frameworks aimed at promoting industrial peace and harmony quite simply no longer exist. In point of fact, these frameworks protect not only employees and their employer but, in the case of a nuclear facility, Canadian citizens as well as residents of neighbouring countries.

It is no doubt useful to recall the reasons cited by the Honourable Justice La Forest in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the Ontario Hydro case:

With the inherent potential dangers associated with nuclear fission, industrial safety - indeed the safety of people hundreds of miles from a nuclear facility - is necessarily dependant on the personnel who operate the facility. A strike, and indeed mere carelessness, could invite disaster.

This was a quote from Justice La Forest's judgement.

In light of this situation, in the course of consultations on the changes to the Canada Labour Code, we recommended to Parliament that it delegate its authority over labour relations back to the provincial governments. It was obvious to us that the legal vacuum could not be allowed to stand and that as such, it negated the Supreme Court judgement and the purpose of all our laws.

.1030

If Parliament did decide to bind the provincial Crown corporations operating nuclear plants and keep them under its jurisdiction, it would of course eliminate this vacuum, but at the cost of balkanizing labour relations at these facilities. Unions and employers would find themselves under two labour relations regimes, with two collective agreements and two laws applying to the same facility. Different rules will have different effects.

Our members at Gentilly-2 will find themselves in a different bargaining unit than their colleagues, along with a different collective agreement, losing in the process the advantages of worker mobility and standardized working and bargaining conditions.

Engineers working at the plant and, in our opinion, even employees in other units will not constitute a group large enough to form a different bargaining unit at Hydro-Québec.

Moreover, as we explained earlier, we would likely lose our certification and our right to represent members in management positions. That is why we have called for federal authority over labour relations in nuclear facilities to be ceded back to the provinces. This will reinstate the status quo.

We realize that this is the intent of Bill C-3 tabled in the House of Commons. While we certainly agree with the principle of the bill, we do have some comments to make, and some amendments to suggest.

Firstly, we would like the reference to provincial laws to be made directly in the federal law, not in regulations. Regulations are made merely on the recommendation of the minister. That which the minister can accomplish by way of regulations can also be undone by regulations at any time.

We are concerned that legislative authority over labour relations in nuclear plants in Canada could swing back and forth between federal and provincial jurisdiction at the minister's discretion.

Federal and provincial labour codes are different. For example, in Quebec, our bargaining unit - if I can use this expression - cannot move from the provincial to the federal level because of its legislative nature. It could not be transferred as is and placed under federal authority. Similarly, the rules of the game with respect to essential services, anti-scab provisions, and so forth, generally vary a great deal from one code to another, that is from the Quebec Labour Code to the Canada Labour Code. For the parties in Quebec, the rules of the game could change and a shift could occur from the federal to the provincial level or vice-versa, without their having even been consulted.

If the legislation made provision for a reference to the provincial laws, the matter would be settled once and for all, and this would probably be true for all job categories. As we understand the bill, the possibility exists that within the same facility, for a period of time determined by the minister, part of the workforce could be covered by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and another part, by those of the provincial Code. This would lead to the balkanization that we feared at the outset. We hope, therefore, that authority over all labour relations will be delegated back to the provinces.

Inclusion of this stipulation in the legislation would lend a more permanent nature to this process than mere regulations would, as proposed in Bill C-3.

However, if you are not prepared to amend the bill, we recommend that the parties concerned, whether management or union, be consulted before the system is changed in any way.

Before changes as sweeping as the ones proposed in Bill C-3 are made, it would seem to us that the fundamental, essential thing to do is to consult the parties affected. The legislation aims to promote harmony between individuals and institutions. How are these individuals or these institutions going to react when they learn in the newspapers that the laws governing their rights and obligations have been transferred to another jurisdiction without their knowledge?

The application and even the wording of the bill do not foster harmony. The facilities where these situations are likely to occur are, by their very nature, fragile and delicate. As Justice La Forest accurately pointed out, mere carelessness could result in disaster.

.1035

If there is one place where laws must justifiably promote harmony, it surely has to be at a nuclear facility. Not only is the safety of workers dependent on this harmony, but the safety of all citizens and even of foreigners with whom we are bound by treaty is dependent on it as well.

We believe that your recommendations will improve this bill and promote continuity and harmony, and at the same time guarantee an environment in which the safety of everyone, workers and the general public alike, is not compromised in any way.

I want to thank the members of the committee. I am now prepared to take questions,Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will start off the questions with the official opposition. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I hope that you have taken a lot of notes, Mr. Chairman, because I want the government to understand clearly that the Official Opposition also intends to move these amendments.

Your overall assessment of the bill is positive, but you are concerned it may be incomplete. You say you agree with the bill and that you even recommended that it be adopted during consultations leading up to the Sims report,. However, you indicated that the bill as it now stands does not, in your estimation, contain all of the elements that would allow for a complete redelegation of authority.

In order for this to be possible, you seem to be making two recommendations. One important amendment that you recommend is that a reference be contained in the federal act. Could you elaborate further on this particular recommendation?

Mr. Champagne: It is our understanding that the bill will give the minister the power, simply by making a recommendation, to shift legislation governing labour relations in Canadian nuclear plants from one level of government to another. There is no guarantee of continuity in this. For all kinds of reasons, we run the risk of seeing legislative authority over labour relations shifted back and forth from the federal to the provincial government or the National Assembly and vice-versa, much as if this were a hot potato. If we want to ensure some continuity, the transfer of this authority to the provinces must be made by way of legislation, rather than by regulation.

Mr. Ménard: For the benefit of those who are listening to us and for the government majority which is always eager to learn something, I will give you a very concrete example. What you would like is for the bill to contain a specific reference to the laws that will apply within a territory. For example, off the top, the Quebec Code would contain references to the Labour Code, the Essential Services Board, ...

Mr. Champagne: The Essential Services Act.

Mr. Ménard: ...essential services legislation. Can you think of any others? I'm thinking about the construction legislation.

Mr. Champagne: Yes. Another likely candidate is the National Holiday Act.

Mr. Ménard: Ms Copps would surely agree with that idea. Even I had forgotten about the National Holiday Act! However, strictly from a...

Mr. Champagne: The Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Mr. Ménard: The Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights. Can you think of any others?

Mr. Champagne: The Charter of the French Language.

Mr. Ménard: Yes, the Charter of the French Language. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about overriding legislation. When Mr. Champagne's question was put to officials, they argued that it was difficult to include references to other laws in this bill, because one of its characteristics was that it was intended for four provinces. However, I'm certain that with some subtlety and legal ingenuity, we can get around this problem.

Mr. Champagne: We have to trust the imagination of lawyers and of those who draft laws.

Mr. Ménard: I see we share the same point of view.

I want to focus on a second important point. Like the two parties representing the neighbouring province, you are also concerned that the parties affected will not be consulted about this redelegation or about any changes that could subsequently occur. Would you care to comment on this?

Mr. Champagne: The bill makes no provision for consultation. It gives the executive branch complete discretion to act. It is even possible that the governments concerned may read about the changes in the newspapers. This would be somewhat surprising, but it is quite possible that the governments will find out through the newspapers that in the future, they will have authority over labour relations at nuclear facilities. These are important facilities, after all, where safety is a prime concern.

.1040

In our opinion, all parties concerned should be consulted before any authority is re-delegated. We are not simply changing three or four commas in a piece of legislation; we are ceding back to the provinces authority over one very important area. Harmony and peace should be the order of the day. Every possible effort should be made to ensure harmony and industrial peace. I would even go so far as to say that the aim of the legislation should be to foster harmony and industrial peace.

Mr. Ménard: I'm confident that the parliamentary secretary has taken note of your concern.

In my opinion, you currently find yourself in legal vacuum.

Mr. Champagne: Yes, you might say that we are.

Mr. Ménard: And Bill C-3, which calls for authority to be delegated back to the provinces, would rectify this situation?

Mr. Champagne: It would in two ways; it would eliminate the void and would enable us to keep the bargaining unit that the National Assembly certified for us in Quebec. That is why we support the proposed legislation.

Mr. Ménard: That's very clear to me. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

We'll proceed to the Reform Party, the third party. Please, Mrs. Hayes.

Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): I am pleased to be able to address a question or two, Mr. Chairman.

I am learning the issue on the fly here. I want to make a point, though, that certainly we would agree with much of what you said, especially with devolving certain powers to the provinces, creating a best-case scenario - efficiency and fairness in the workplace - and certainly looking to the security of Canadians in these kinds of facilities that you work with.

I have just a comment on the two amendments you have. Maybe I can make both comments and then you could answer to them, if you would.

The first suggestion you had would be to change this to law rather than regulation, and you make the point that what a minister can do, he can undo, or perhaps change over time. Do you foresee that this particular structure of the bill could actually lead to a difference in treatment federally between the provinces themselves? Could, over time, there be a change if it is flexible? Could that indeed lead to differences in the regulation between provinces? Could you comment on this?

The second point is on your point about the consultation process that you recommended. My understanding is that this particular problem has not just come up. Certainly in 1993 there was the occasion of the Supreme Court ruling, but even before that this was ongoing over some time. You mentioned that there is a legal vacuum and a vacuum in policy and in rights protection, collective to individual.

To me, that is a very real threat to...what you said is that the slightest negligence could lead to disaster. We have a vacuum, we have a problem now. Is it preferable in your mind to leave the vacuum for the case of consultation? It sounds as if you agree with the legislation. If you represent the people with whom you're working, could that not be worked out and resolved so that we don't in fact have negligence, we don't have the possibility of the disaster that you mentioned? Is consultation better than resolution at this point in time?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: As far as consultation goes, we don't know of any nuclear plants in Canada where a legal void currently exists and where labour relations problems are anticipated. Therefore, there is time to consult with Canadians.

This void has existed for several years now; it was first noted in 1994. We have been experiencing this for two years and a few months either way will not create any safety risks. The risks are the same today as they were one or two years ago. It is no more or less dangerous today than it was in May or June of 1994. That's my first point.

We should take the time to hold consultations because we shouldn't go with the quick fix solution. Any action that we take should ensure some continuity and promote long-term industrial peace and harmony between the two parties. If authority is delegated back by way of regulation or if we move too quickly, we run the risk of achieving the opposite result.

.1045

Therefore, to answer your question, we believe that now is the time for consultation and that we should take all the time we need and do the work once and for all, that is really delegate back to the provinces that want it the authority over labour relations in nuclear plants, and that we should move as decisively as possible.

We know that a constitutional amendment would be required in order to transfer this authority once and for all. The safest route, to ensure that the transfer had a lasting effect, would be to make some provision for it in the legislation. That's my first comment.

I believe your first question had to do with redelegation. You had two questions, one of which dealt with consultation. What was the first one?

[English]

Mrs. Hayes: When the changes are made by regulation and not in legislation, do you see that as a potential for not only change but also inconsistency perhaps in the application of the rules over time between provinces?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: The provinces can apply laws in different ways. They can enact different laws to deal with the same subject. In Quebec, we have the essential services act. I don't know whether Ontario has a similar piece of legislation and I don't know how essential services are guaranteed in Ontario or New Brunswick. It is the responsibility of each provincial government to ensure the safety of its citizens and to maintain essential services.

As far as we are concerned, to the extent that a law becomes the subject of a social consensus... In Quebec, for example, services are guaranteed by legislation and we don't see why this legislation should be imposed on New Brunswick or on Ontario simply because it satisfies Quebeckers and is the subject of a consensus in that province.

In short, if a law can guarantee the same level of safety at a nuclear plant in Quebec as is guaranteed at plants located in Ontario or in New Brunswick, there is no reason to enact legislation that applies to all Canadians. The same is true of essential services legislation. If Quebeckers are satisfied with their Essential Services Act, we see no reason why efforts should be made to export it to Alberta or Ontario. These laws should remain the domain of the provinces. Some disparity is normal. If laws were the same in all provinces, there would be no need for provinces in Canada.

[English]

Mrs. Hayes: I guess it wasn't so much that the provinces wouldn't operate differently because they'd be operating under their own jurisdiction; it would be, say, similar to the immigration situation where Quebec is allowed to have its own rules whereas other provinces do not. For example, could this be made to apply federally to some provinces and then not to another? Would that be an outcome of this kind of set-up, or potentially so?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: Pursuant to Bill C-3, if a provincial labour minister decided not to enact within his own province laws governing nuclear plants, if, for example, New Brunswick's Minister of Labour decided to leave authority over labour relations in nuclear plants in the hands of the federal government, then that would be his province's choice.

[English]

Mrs. Hayes: Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll proceed to the government side. Mr. Proud.

Mr. Proud: I just have a couple of comments.

I listened to your presentation, gentlemen, and I think it was a very good presentation. The concerns you have about the regulations.... Once this bill is passed, the Government of Quebec then can decide if it wants to implement this process. It would ask us to pass it on to them.

I believe the way to do it is to negotiate prior to that, with the province and the federal government to be notified that this is going to take place. If it passes, if they decide to take it, then it's up to you people, the unions, and the Government of Quebec, or the Government of New Brunswick, or the Government of Ontario, to negotiate the Labour Relations Act. That's the idea of it, to streamline the process, and that's all I see it as being.

As for the nuclear facilities having to be regulated by the federal government, that's what the Supreme Court said. Until they change this decision, we have no choice.

.1050

The Chairman: Ms Brown.

Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): I noticed that from Ontario we had both the professional employees and the Power Workers' Union, and from the Quebec Hydro we have the professional employees now. But are we having the equivalent to the Power Workers' Union at some point in the day?

The Chairman: Give me a moment to refer to the clerk regarding who the witnesses are.

Ms Brown: If we are not, I am wondering if these witnesses are aware of whether or not that group is in agreement with their position.

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: I believe representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees are slated to appear this afternoon. They can speak for themselves.

[English]

The Chairman: We have two minutes. Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would just like the record to show that the witnesses' overall assessment of the bill today was very positive.

However, some concerns have been expressed regarding the process. Earlier on, the parliamentary secretary stated that the process must first be negotiated. In some ways, I can understand the parliamentary secretary's comments, but he must also understand where the unions are coming from.

If I understand them correctly, they are telling us that essentially in a democracy, issues must be decided by Parliament. Ours is a democracy based on representation. When I rise in the House, I am representing the people of Hochelaga - Maisonneuve. At times, people appreciate that while at other times, they do not. One way for them to show whether or not they approve is to re-elect me or turf me out of office.

Your concern is that in a democracy, we cannot go to Parliament each time the situation warrants a review of the regulations. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Proud: But there's one thing you're not going to do in Parliament. You're not going to negotiate every union contract between the employer and the employees. You're going to put the laws in place, but you're not going to negotiate the contract between the unions and the employees, the province or whatever it may be.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I think Mr. Champagne realizes that unique rules apply to the bargaining process. However, he also wonders why, and I will let him speak to that, authority cannot be delegated back with the inclusion of an explicit reference that all of the laws in question that apply to that province will also be delegated back. There is nothing preventing this from a legislative standpoint. Can you add anything to this? Basically, if we were to ask you why the solution advocated by Mr. Champagne is not possible, what would your answer be?

[English]

Mr. Proud: With the law that was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada, we were contacted by the four governments and asked to implement this mechanism whereby it could be administrated by the provinces. That's what it is. It's as simple and as plain as that.

The Chairman: Do our witnesses have a comment on that, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: Why must we proceed by way of regulation? Couldn't this be done by way of a law? That is the issue. We are not asking to negotiate with one level of government in particular. We want to negotiate with the employers. We are talking about the bargaining framework, not about the object of the negotiations. It's not the same thing. We have no desire to bargain with the provincial government, much less with the federal government. We want to bargain with our employer. However, we want to know the rules of the bargaining game before we undertake this process.

[English]

The Chairman: I think you made an excellent presentation, and thank you very much. Merci beaucoup. I think we have to move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: Thank you.

.1055

[English]

The Chairman: Our next witnesses are from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2309. John Cole, the manager, I'll ask you to tell us where you and your local are from and to introduce your colleague.

Mr. John Cole (Business Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2309): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm John Cole, business manager for the IBEW Local 2309, situated in the province of New Brunswick. I'm sorry I couldn't give you more background. We found out about this committee hearing on Monday at noon hour, so our written remarks are very brief. But we'd like to explore the questions.

We represent all the operational, maintenance and clerical employees at Point Lepreau nuclear generating station - I might add, the number one nuclear station in the world. We also represent another 550 employees of N.B. Power, on the technical administrative side. We've been in operation since 1971 and representing Point Lepreau since 1979.

We're here to put forward our position, which is different from what you just heard. I didn't hear the previous presentations.

My colleague is Ray Dixon, our legal counsel from Fredericton. He was with us during the 1979 certification of our bargaining unit, during the application going through the Canada Labour Code, and was following the engineers society from Quebec as they went through the legal process, up to and including the refusal of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We propose to read through the three or four pages we had an opportunity to put together last evening. It gives everybody a chance to dig into it a little. We're sorry that we couldn't supply it en français, because it was very short notice.

In our view, Bill C-3 will allow the federal government to abdicate responsibility for labour relations in the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is a federal undertaking in that all its operations are regulated federally except labour relations. It makes no sense to separate labour relations from the rest of a plant's operations, as Bill C-3 proposes. Nuclear power, and in particular labour relations in the nuclear industry, is not an issue this government should take lightly.

Furthermore, nuclear power as energy is an interprovincial and international commodity. New Brunswick sells power to other provinces and to the United States. In fact, it is possible that in the future, since the technology now exists, U.S.-based utility companies may sell power here.

In an environment where public and private sectors mix, where there is interprovincial and international movement, and most importantly, where the commodity is essential to the national interest, the federal government must assume full responsibility for all regulation. In fact, instead of the federal and provincial governments sending responsibilities back and forth depending on the current political climate, the federal government should look to the future. We submit that the Canada Labour Code should be amended to include not only provincial crown corporations but the entire national electrical energy industry.

Finally, we are at a loss to understand why the government would propose such an amendment while at the same time conducting a full review of part I of the code, commonly called the Sims initiative. It is highly unusual to see a bill amending any part of the Canada Labour Code without it having gone through an extensive joint consultation process with both labour and business.

That's my submission. I'll turn it over to our legal counsel to run through the legal side of the issue.

Mr. Ray Dixon (Legal Counsel, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2309): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding the legal issues, first I'll bring you abreast of where we stand in New Brunswick.

On April 7, 1994, two years ago, Local 2309 filed an application for certification as bargaining agent under the Canada Labour Code for certification for all employees employed at the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, and that's the one station that operates in the province of New Brunswick.

.1100

On April 28 of the same year, the employer, New Brunswick Power Corporation, filed a reply in which the employer argued that the Canada Labour Code does not apply to it by virtue of its status as a provincial crown corporation. The employer argued that the Canada Labour Code contained no provisions to bind New Brunswick Power Corporation and, thus, the Canada Labour Relations Board had no jurisdiction.

In mid-February 1996, just last month, the Canada Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification by IBEW Local 2309 on the grounds that New Brunswick Power Corporation is protected by crown immunity. So the issue has been decided by the Canada Labour Relations Board in the province of New Brunswick as it now stands.

Our position is that the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station is owned and operated by New Brunswick Power Corporation, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal Atomic Energy Control Act and those regulations. I don't think there's any argument about that.

In November 1993, as mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada held in the Ontario Hydro case that nuclear generating stations operating under licences granted pursuant to section 18 of the Atomic Energy Control Act fall under federal jurisdiction for labour relations purposes. IBEW 2309 submits that this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is good authority that the operation of Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station should be governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Section 17 of the Interpretation Act allows Parliament to bind the Crown in right of Canada as well as in right of the provinces. That's the Alberta Government Telephones v. Canada case in 1989, which is referred to as the AGT case. The Crown will only be bound by legislation if the statute contains express language to this effect.

After the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the AGT case, Parliament saw fit to amend the Canada Labour Code in 1993 when a new Telecommunications Act was adopted. The amendment to part III of the Canada Labour Code was that this part applies to or in respect of any Canadian carrier as defined in section 2 of the Telecommunications Act, which is an agent of Her Majesty in right of the province.

This amendment was added to the Canada Labour Code in 1993 in order to offset the effects of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the AGT case in which the Supreme Court had held that employees of provincial crown corporations were not subject to the Canada Labour Code. In other words, employees of provincial crown corporations operating in the telecommunications field were expressly included in the Canada Labour Code by the simple amendment to the act in 1993.

IBEW 2309 submits there are good and valid arguments for retaining federal jurisdiction over labour relations in nuclear generating stations throughout Canada. Instead of the complex amendments proposed in Bill C-3, a simple amendment similar to that in the 1993 amendment would place labour relations for provincial crown corporations whose activities are regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Act under the Canada Labour Code.

The gap created by Parliament's failure to bind provincial crown corporations in the Canada Labour Code can be filled by an express statement that part I of the Canada Labour Code applies to or in respect of any corporation that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of a province whose activities are regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act.

This is our submission, Mr. Chairman. We're simply saying that New Brunswick Power Corporation being a crown corporation, this matter, instead of being dealt with in such a complicated fashion as Bill C-3, could simply be dealt with in the same fashion as the telecommunications industry - that is, that the federal government could step in and exercise its jurisdiction. That's the position my client in New Brunswick takes.

.1105

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your points.

We'll go in reverse order this time and start with the government side.

Mr. Proud: Where does your certification stand now?

Mr. Dixon: Our certification is a provincial certification.

Mr. Proud: Company-wide.

Mr. Dixon: No, it's not company-wide. There are two certifications and they're not plant-wide. The application under the Canada Labour Code, which was dismissed by the Canada Labour Relations Board, would have seen IBEW having plant-wide jurisdiction in Point Lepreau.

Mr. Cole: Of course, today it's business as normal. Our board has taken the position that they seized the jurisdiction and we're proceeding with business as normal. We're not experiencing the same problem. Our board chairman has taken a different interpretation from perhaps our Quebec -

Mr. Proud: So your recommendation is that the regulatory agency should be the federal government, the same as it is in the telephone industry.

Mr. Dixon: Correct. I just might add - -

Mr. Proud: Just on nuclear.

Mr. Cole: We're proposing it be on the whole electrical industry. Even today, when our company applies for export permits for power, we have to go through the National Energy Board. I'm not sure what act it's under, but they have to apply for an export permit, and they have to go before hearings at this level to get that approval to buy and sell power internationally. I'm not sure whether interprovincial is regulated as well. But it's in the electrical industry, and that's why we say it's a national issue. It is my understanding that part of the mandate of the National Energy Board is to ensure we have a safe, secure and sufficient electrical power supply in our country before we can start selling it elsewhere. That is another federal regulation that ties into the total national electrical energy industry.

Mr. Proud: For years and years there was always this great scheme out there; there was talk about this national power grid we were going to have. It never came into being because of the provincial jurisdiction, of course, because you couldn't move power from one province to another some time ago without horrendous cost. The cost may have gone down recently, but at one time there was a fairly substantial cost to move it through.

If you want to take power from Quebec and move it to Nova Scotia, do you have to go through New Brunswick?

Mr. Cole: Correct.

Mr. Proud: That's the whole problem the utility industry faces.

Mr. Cole: Today we buy and sell from Hydro-Québec, the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Nova Scotia, right down into the New York Power Exchange - NEPEX, it's called - which is the whole U.S. eastern seaboard. Ontario Hydro is also tied into that system and of course they are tied to Manitoba and across the country. We have problems tying with Hydro-Québec just because of the structure of their generating and transmission system. With their generation up north on the big rivers and their load in the Montreal area, it gets quite unstable. We are tied to Hydro-Québec, but through a buffer high-voltage DC link. For years we've had large sales with Hydro-Québec, in the order of 300 to 500 megawatts an hour.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions from the government side at this time?

We'll proceed to the Reform Party. Mrs. Hayes.

Mrs. Hayes: I have a quick and perhaps more personal question. You call yourself the number one nuclear station in the world.

Mr. Cole: Correct.

Mrs. Hayes: Do you want to tell us a little more about that? I'm curious.

Mr. Cole: Since we started operations in 1981, with our 10 years of operation we're the number one nuclear station in the world in lifetime average. We just went through efficiency generation. Our outages are very short, our staff are very efficient, and we have very few uncontemplated shutdowns. We are ranked in the nuclear industry as number one in the world for the 500-megawatt units and above.

Mrs. Hayes: Congratulations.

Mr. Cole: We're very proud of it.

Mrs. Hayes: So you should be.

Just to clarify - and I may be repeating the question that was asked before. You are recommending that the legislation not go forward and that the federal jurisdiction over labour and the Canada Labour Code still take precedence within Point Lepreau.

.1110

My question is, are you saying that right now there are two jurisdictions? Would that mean there would still exist two jurisdictions? If your recommendation goes forward within the labour pool working at the plant, would that mean there'd be two labour codes in effect?

Mr. Cole: Not right at our nuclear station, in our view. When we applied for Canada Labour Code, we applied for everybody on-site, the engineering group and everything. Today, under our provincial Public Service Labour Relations Act we represent the operational maintenance and clerical workers and there is a group of 80 or so who are potential under the Public Service Labour Relations Act for organization, but they're not in our group; they are in a group that is across the province.

So if Point Lepreau was included under the federal jurisdiction, they would be separated. So we would have basically two jurisdictions, one for the nuclear industry under the Canada Labour Code and the other for the rest of the industry under the provincial legislation that has been there since 1968 or so.

So there would be a separation. Today we have two different certification orders, but that's more a process under the Public Service Labour Relations Board, not so much because of anything the federal legislation or provincial legislation did.

Mrs. Hayes: My understanding is that part of the argument for the change is to remove those two jurisdictions within the same workplace. Does that not...?

Mr. Cole: No. That wouldn't apply. We'd either have one or the other.

Mr. Proud: Would you have two jurisdictions within the company?

Mr. Cole: Yes. Within the company there would be two jurisdictions, but within Lepreau there would be one. One at Lepreau and one for the rest of the province.

The Chairman: Thank you. We will move on to the official opposition, please. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, our witnesses from New Brunswick are calling on us to reject the bill. You seem unhappy with the proposed legislation. You find that it is unnecessary and that basically, it will not enhance the day-to-day operation of your facilities.

Initially, I understood the same thing as my Reform Party colleague, but later on, you backed down. Initially, you stated that one advantage to the federal government maintaining jurisdiction over labour relations was that you would have only one certification. Subsequently, you said that this would not be the case, that in any event, regardless of where the federal government comes in, there would be two certifications in place at your plant. Am I correct?

[English]

Mr. Cole: Yes. It's a little confusing, but today we have one certification for the province under our nuclear and conventional side. Our board has seized control rather than as in Quebec where they've basically left them in limbo. Our board has taken the position that in light of the Supreme Court they're seizing control until somebody tells them differently. It's business as normal as it has been since 1971 and 1979 at Lepreau.

We don't agree with the legislation as proposed. We agree the federal jurisdiction should be for the nuclear station, for industrial relations, the same as it is for the safety aspect, the operation, the licensing, the fuelling, all that stuff. You shouldn't just separate part of the puzzle.

All that would mean to us is that we would have to certify under the Canada Labour Code for that site. The rest of the company would have a different certification. Our local would operate under two different rules, but that's not unusual.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling, labour relations were regulated under provincial laws. When Minister Gagliano made his statement in the House - and his speech is a matter of public record - he stated that the decision to cede authority over this area back to the provinces was based on the fact that for 50 years, this sector, that is labour relations, had been provincially regulated. It is difficult to understand how it would be to your advantage to have the federal government retain jurisdiction over labour relations given that, in any case, it did not believe it had authority over this area to begin with.

.1115

I believe you stated earlier on that it would be much simpler from the standpoint of certifications. In any case, this is not an argument that weighs in the balance since even without Bill C-3, you would continue to have a dual certification system in place.

Therefore, it is difficult to disagree with the main argument put forward by the Minister in the House, namely that the provinces have long standing expertise in this area and that it would be to their advantage, if they so desire it, to obtain jurisdiction over this area. Now then, do you have reason to believe that your provincial government will not ask for authority to be delegated back to it?

[English]

Mr. Dixon: Perhaps I could just address the legal issue you've raised. Historically, I wouldn't think one could say that for 50 years the province has governed nuclear power generating stations in New Brunswick. It's only 10 or 15 years old. So it's not that old.

The other point in terms of history is that if you look at telecommunications in New Brunswick, New Brunswick Telephone, for example, was governed by New Brunswick laws right up until 1989, until the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and then the amendments to the code. So for years telecommunications was governed by the provinces and was then taken over by federal jurisdiction.

So the fact that the nuclear industry has operated by default because the province moved in where the federal government failed to move when Point Lepreau was built, I don't think was a history lesson. We take the position that the province simply moved into the vacuum and filled it. What we're asking the federal government to do is to occupy that field because they occupy it in all other respects with regard to nuclear power. As Mr. Cole says, everything else is governed by the federal government. Why shouldn't labour relations be governed with respect to nuclear power?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You're saying that the provinces have had authority over this area, by default for the past 15 years in your case in particular. You find that the process set out in Bill C-3 is inconsistent because from a safety standpoint, in terms of the handling of products and so forth, the federal government would be involved. You argue that in any case, with Bill C-3, you will have a dual system of labour relations in place. Would it not be preferable to see the legal vacuum filled by the provinces, as Bill C-3 proposes to do?

[English]

Mr. Cole: We're not in the same boat as Quebec. We're not in a vacuum for labour relations. Our board has seized it. The question is whether we should be under federal or under provincial. In our view, we should be under federal because in that industry everything else is governed and regulated by the federal jurisdiction. So why not labour relations? The Supreme Court also said that.

Then because of the crown immunity argument in Quebec, it went up through and that was thrown out - that we don't regulate because of crown immunity. As a result, apparently Hydro-Québec is saying you're in limbo. But in New Brunswick our board has said no, you're not in limbo; we've had it before, the federal government doesn't want it, so we shall seize it. We're operating business as normal today under our existing laws.

Our position is that in nuclear it should be 100% regulated by the federal, if that's the route the government took, which it always was, and that's the only change.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You claim that without Bill C-3, labour relations in New Brunswick would continue to be regulated by provincial laws. You would like everything to be standardized. You want the federal government to have jurisdiction over labour relations and nuclear undertakings and you want your facility to be fully subject to federal laws.

.1120

[English]

Mr. Cole: Yes, that's correct, we agree with you. We believe that labour relations is another part of the operation of that station. If things aren't happy, the station is not happy. If things don't work well, the station doesn't work well. The government regulates everything else on that property, including environmental, training, you name it - everything except labour relations, which the Supreme Court said you should. Now you want to turn it back to the province and we do not agree with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: And if the lawyers were to tell us this morning that certain legal conditions would make it possible to maintain Bill C-3 as is while including a specific reference that in the particular case of New Brunswick - we can easily convince ourselves that you are a distinct society - the federal government will have full jurisdiction over labour relations and undertakings regulated under the AEC act and that in your plant, the federal government will have full and sole jurisdiction, would you then agree with Bill C-3? In short, you want a guarantee that federal laws will apply to labour relations and to AEC regulated undertakings.

[English]

Mr. Dixon: Yes, that's what we want, although our suggestion is that we really don't need Bill C-3. We need the Crown to occupy the field.

The Chairman: We're just going to have a couple of minutes for each party again.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. Proud: I just want to sum up my comment on this whole operation. I'm interested in your views on the electrical industry being regulated federally. But let me assure you that this is not going to happen in the next few months.

What this is trying to do is to simplify a process, and I'm not saying that we're getting out of anything, because nuclear energy, nuclear power is a very critical part of our electric supply system. It's one that is out of favour with some people, but to me it's going to be around for a long time.

Companies are on our backs every day about all the regulations and rules and everything else that the federal government says they have to go through. So what we're trying to do here to all intents and purposes is to simplify a process, hand back to the province the jurisdiction of labour management relations and safety and health outside of the nuclear. We look after the nuclear. That's our responsibility and in no way are we going to go away from that. This is the idea of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Cole: Just to follow up, I was curious that he said on the national electrical industry in the next few months it wasn't going to happen. My question is whether your long-term plans are that it is going to happen.

Mr. Proud: No, I'd never even heard of it until you mentioned it.

Mr. Cole: Depending on who's in the room...they told me not to say it, but we're threatened every day in New Brunswick and in the rest of the utility industry in Canada with deregulation, which is exactly what the telecommunication industry went through. If that's the way we're heading, then I would suggest to you as a government -

Mr. Proud: What my comments meant were that I'll guarantee you that out of the 10 provinces, there's not going to be 10 of them tomorrow that say yes, let's go and do it in the electrical area.

Mr. Cole: No, I realize that.

Mr. Proud: If you can do this, I'll cave into you right now and say let's go with it.

Mr. Cole: No, I'm not that great.

The Chairman: Mrs. Hayes from the third party, do you have a question?

Mrs. Hayes: From the discussion that has gone on, I understand that you have been under provincial jurisdiction and labour rules for the last 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Cole: Yes, since 1979.

Mrs. Hayes: You have a legal process that you would suggest instead of Bill C-3 and recommend it on the basis that it's simpler or a part of....

Have there been problems with provincial jurisdiction in labour relations? You said you are number one in the world. It sounds as if the provincial jurisdiction has worked very well. Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Cole: It depends on how you look at it. On a day-to-day basis, it has worked reasonably well. There is more freedom under the Canada Labour Code. I'll be quite honest with you. There are a lot more freedoms, as far as we are concerned, under the Canada Labour Code versus the existing provincial legislation under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. We're continually having problems with classifications that we cannot argue, but we can under the Canada Labour Code. There's a lot more latitude under the Canada Labour Code.

.1125

We've managed to work with the existing legislation, and some days we don't like it and some days it's okay. Our preference is based on the nuclear industry itself, that in our view you can't pick and choose what should be regulated where. It's a complete industry, a good industry, a serious industry, and it should be regulated from one source, not from...in this case, we would be talking, if you include Manitoba, of five sources, under some sort of regulation, if you include AECL in Manitoba, if you change that back to the province. I'll forget about the uranium side in Saskatchewan, which is under AECB regulations.

So in our view labour relations should be part and parcel of the package and should be regulated from one source, not from potentially five or six different sources, if you include labour relations and devolving it to the provinces.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Cole and Mr. Dixon.

I want to remind us all that we're back here at 3:30 p.m. for our next witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, with respect to my motion that we continue our discussions with Ontario Hydro and the civil servant present, is the government prepared to consider it?

[English]

The Chairman: I did ask that question, Mr. Ménard, and what I'm told is that we can't ask the department officials to appear because they're not all here and they're not all available today. They say that we'd have to have them all available and they're not at this time. I will ask further as we break now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: That's not the way things are done. First of all, it is normal for a motion to be put to the committee. If the government doesn't want to give Ontario Hydro the opportunity to be heard, I would hope that the motion will be rejected and that there will be a recorded vote. I have made a formal motion. This is not the neighbourhood bar. I have made a motion as a member of Parliament. If the government wants to reject it, then it can do so, but there will have to have a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm just learning here. Are you making that a formal motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: My motion is as follows: that the committee extend its meeting until 12:00 noon with Ontario Hydro and the civil servant here present from Labour Canada in order to answer the witnesses' questions regarding certain provisions in the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, when you say the ``civil servant'' from the department, I'm trying to work with you on this, but I honestly don't know who the ``civil servant'' is because several department officials put work into this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think that in essence, we are pursuing the same objective. We are genuinely trying to understand the witnesses' position. Ontario Hydro employs 5,000 of the 9,000 workers affected. We do not feel that it is an unimportant or marginal witness. Perhaps the right official is not here.

I was under the impression that the civil servant here before me, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten, was well versed in the bill. If this is not the case, perhaps the Chair would agree to our request that at the conclusion of our work this afternoon, Labour Canada meet with officials to answer Ontario Hydro's questions. This doesn't mean that the Official Opposition plans to withhold its consent, but the civilized thing to do is to answer the witnesses' questions in a parliamentary committee setting. What purpose does it serve to examine a bill if we won't answer the witnesses' questions?

[English]

Mr. Proud: Mr. Chairman, I thought we agreed earlier in the day that these people would meet with the people who were here, in another room.

Ms Brown: Why do we have to go?

The Chairman: Later today we're going to have some officials here, but I do not know which officials were involved in writing this bill. I think we can break now, have a huddle, and ask the officials who are here whether they will consider meeting with the local or not. It's certainly not in my position.

For the moment, we'll break.

We have a motion on the floor, do we? Okay, we have a motion on the floor.

.1130

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You are an endearing chairman and we won't argue with you. I don't want to be picky about procedure, but you must clearly express what's on your mind. What you are telling me is that the government is prepared to designate officials to meet with Ontario Hydro representatives late this afternoon along with myself and the Reform Party, that is if it cares to join us. Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Chairman? If so, I will support your proposal. The objective is to provide answers to the witnesses' questions.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm not making a proposal. I can make a request and what happens following my request.... Ms Hayes.

Mrs. Hayes: I have a point of order, please, Mr. Chairman. I know in some committees I've been involved in there needs to be a 24-hour notice of motion. Is that the case in this committee?

The Chairman: I am told not, Mrs. Hayes.

Mrs. Hayes: Thank you.

The Chairman: So, Mr. Ménard, whether we proceed with your motion or not, I will make that request that you or whoever can meet. I can't guarantee the outcome of the request.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: [inaudible]

[English]

The Chairman: I'm told that some officials are here now and we will talk to them.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have confidence in your leadership, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.

Return to Committee Home Page