Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to give Mr. Lotito a chance--because we haven't heard from him yet--to talk about this legislation's effect him. We'll get a second round of questions.

Could you tell us how this legislation would affect your organization?

[Vito Lotito, Vice-President, Human Resources, Canadian Airports Council]

I would like to start with the aviation industry and the airports.

The number one operational assumption of any airport in Canada and in the world is always the worst-case scenario. We process in Toronto--the travelling public--80,000 passengers per day, 31 million per year. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in this business for 30 years, labour relations, and the only thing I can provide you with is empirical evidence from the operator side. We have nine contracts with CAW; two with PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada; and one with our firefighters. In the last ten and a half years, we have been through negotiations three times.

The first was very difficult, because when Pearson was transferred from Transport Canada, we inherited 27 collective agreements and nine unions. We were able to essentially blend all these agreements and unions into two units. So you can imagine going through negotiations...25 or 26 of them with different needs. Unfortunately for the two parties, we ended up with a strike--38 days. This was in 1998, before essential services. Anyway, we survived. The two parties were able to see the light. We found wisdom, helped by the deputy minister.

In the second round of negotiations we almost had a strike. We were able to negotiate a three-year contract. In those days, we had SARS in Toronto, so it was very tough.

The third set of negotiations was this past summer, and we, the employer and the union, can claim victory. We have a four-year contract. It's a beautiful contract.

What I'm trying to say is that the balance is there. In this kind of business, the labour relations field, you don't develop relationships overnight. It takes a long time. There is always tomorrow in this business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lotito.

We're going to move now to the second round.

Mr. D'Amours, five minutes, please.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chairman, the first thing I'd like to say is that, in my opinion, all sides are well entrenched in their positions. Management and employers want the status quo. Unions and workers want the bill to be adopted as is. Our discussions clearly point to the fact that essential services are a key issue.

Having said this, Mr. Facette, could you please explain to me once again your stance on airport emergency services? What did you say exactly during your presentation?

[Jim Facette]

Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code specifically states that we must maintain safety and security at our airports. What we have at the various airports is an activity agreement that allows airports to continue. The problem is that it's not good enough. This piece of legislation will go against our ability to maintain safe and secure operations. It goes further than it's intended to.

I'll let Mr. Lotito address it a bit further from a practitioner's point of view.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

But I simply want...

[Jim Facette]

Mr. Chairman, it's part of my answer. I would like Mr. Lotito to continue the answer.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'll come back to it, Mr. Facette.

There's something I'd like to know. You made a comment earlier. Can you tell me where your office is located?

[Jim Facette]

Here in Ottawa.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

As a member for New Brunswick, do you know how many kilometres I have driven over more than two years in order to serve the constituents in my riding because there isn't an airport near where I live? I haven't had to hitchhike. I have had to drive over 2,000 kilometres every week.

I'd like to come back to a comment you made earlier. You undoubtedly referred to section 87.4 having heard a comment I made at the last meeting. What did you say at the beginning of your presentation? Did you say that Canadians wouldn't get services? Earlier, you referred to Medevac. Did you say that Medevac won't be able to assist the sick in getting around?

Is that what you said?

[Jim Facette]

We have a situation at airports, with civil aviation regulations, that we must adhere to. If an airport operator is of the opinion that they cannot safely and securely operate that airport, they have no choice but to shut down that airport--or have the regulator remove their operating certificate for them.

If that becomes the case and the airport is shut down, then planes of all types would be unable to land at the airport.

That is the worst-case scenario that Mr. Lotito addressed.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'd like to go a bit further. I'm aware of the current certification at a number of airports. I was previously the chair of the board of directors of a New Brunswick municipal airport. I know that certification is different depending on the size of the airport and the services provided. If a small airport located in a region like mine, where there is no daily air transport available, is able, with just a few employees, to provide a safe service in assisting the landing of an ambulance aircraft, how is it that you aren't able to make sure that you have a few employees to meet your operating certificate's requirements and provide a similar service?

[Jim Facette]

We would say that it's a matter of degree.

On that point, I'll let Mr. Lotito take over. He can talk about some of the operational issues we have to face every day.

[Vito Lotito]

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the smaller airports are not...? Under the federal legislation, I think the same rules will apply to them.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

No, that's not what I said. I said that I understand each airport will have a different operating certificate in accordance with the services it provides. But this is what I want to know: in the past, when a regional airport got a federal certificate it was able, with just a few employees, to provide an aircraft ambulance service. They managed to do this with just a few employees and a short runway. Why can't airports like the ones you represent make sure there are enough employees to provide the necessary emergency services?

A bit later, if I have any time left, I'll come back to Mr. Giroux's interpretation of section 87.4. I'd be interested in hearing what ever reading you've made of it. But I've interpreted it differently because the word “prevent” is used. You don't need to wait for an emergency to take steps. You can also take preventative action, in other words, take the necessary steps to prevent such an emergency from occurring. Prevention means taking action ahead of time, and not waiting for an emergency to occur. Now, in the case of an airport, you'll be able to ensure that planes, and in some cases helicopters, will be able to land to provide emergency health care. So I don't understand why some airports in Canada manage, and others don't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll let Mr. Facette answer the question, but that's all the time you have, Mr. D'Amours.

Go ahead, sir.

[Jim Facette]

The civil aviation regulations are very complex. They also apply to airports differently. Based on their passenger volumes, they're categorized very differently. The requirements of a very small regional airport are very much different from a Toronto one.

It would take some time to go through it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move to the next questioner.

Mr. Lessard, five minutes, please.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, I read your press release this morning in which you made a public statement about Bill C-257. You said that it was about as effective as grandmother's chicken noodle soup. You're right. When I saw that, I was pleased. I said to myself, he's going to come and lend his support to the bill. In Quebec, grandma's chicken noodle soup is very effective. Grandmothers have healed a lot of children and grandchildren. They've also settled a lot of disputes. If it hadn't been for my grandmother, I probably wouldn't be able to walk today, seriously...

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon]

Oh, in English we said “folk” medicine. Maybe it was....

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

There's a translation problem.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I quickly realized that I was rejoicing too soon because, in fact, you are opposed to the bill. I gathered you would come here today and explain why you are against it.

I'm sure the Conseil du patronat has members who carry out research and development. In a lab, however, projects are directed on the basis of experience. In Quebec, I would have thought that 30 years of anti-scab legislation makes for a darn good laboratory.

The unions have described real labour conflicts to us this morning where, without anti-scab legislation, replacement workers were used, I would have hoped that you would have given examples to back up your remarks. I'm still waiting.

I'd like you to answer my question without being overly theoretical, even though you do a good job at this. What concrete experiences have your affiliates had in Quebec which would suggest that anti-strike breaker legislation had an impact on the economy and on employment, and led to the dramatic incidents which occurred before the adoption of anti-scab legislation?

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon]

Mr. Chair, rather than going by anecdotal evidence, we think it is more relevant to base our analysis on statistics from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which are included in the brief we tabled.

The honourable member says that he would have liked to have heard anecdotal evidence, and I will share some of this with him, but before this, I'd like to talk about the approach we have adopted. I'm sure both sides can come up with anecdotes to back up their arguments, but I think it is more relevant when you provide statistics over a 25-year period and compare jurisdictions.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

With all due respect, I don't want to hear anecdotal evidence. These aren't stories that people have told us, they are real life dramas. I don't want anecdotal evidence, I want real and verifiable examples of situations faced by workers. But I don't want to get caught up on that, I want to know what has guided you in your analysis.

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon]

We won't debate the words “anecdotal evidence”. So let's talk about a concrete example, for argument sake. Let's talk about Telus, for argument sake.

I'd like to finish my answer, if I may.Thank you.

Mr. Chair, several lengthy rounds of bargaining took place at Telus—I won't go into that now—but when the final offers were made by the company, the union leadership told me they had decided not to present the offer to the unionized workers.

Because of the current legislation, unionized employees were able to avail themselves of their democratic right to dissent. This was especially the case in Quebec and Ontario where virtually every employee went to work despite the union leadership's instructions to not do so. This is a point which hasn't been raised until now.

Replacement workers were not called in. The existing workers wanted to keep coming to work. However, should the current bill pass, and should a similar situation re-occur, these workers would not be entitled to dissent and, as a result, would not have the right to go to work.