Human Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, we will now continue to hear witnesses on Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Our order of business is to have some committee business and then some witnesses, but I'm just going to switch that around. We're going to have our committee business right after we hear from our witnesses.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be here today for this very important legislation. We're going to give each of you seven minutes for your opening remarks. and then we'll have a couple of rounds of questions—three rounds, if possible, but two rounds for sure—of seven minutes in the first round followed by a second round of five minutes. Any round after that will be five minutes as well. So if you're not able to get all your points out, hopefully you'll be able to during the questions and answers.

Joining us through video conference is Mr. Massy from Burnaby.

Can you guys hear us?

[Peter Massy, Vice-President, Burnaby, Telecommunications Workers Union]

Yes, we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Great. Welcome from Vancouver.

Our first witness is from the Hotel Association of Canada.

Mr. Pollard, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Anthony Pollard, President, Hotel Association of Canada]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Tony Pollard. I'm president of the Hotel Association of Canada. As I said, we want to thank you for this opportunity to be here today.

We're very strongly opposed to this bill, and right at the outset we recommend that it not go forward. Let me just give you a very brief background on what the hotel business is, how big we are, and what we do.

Last year, in 2006, we generated revenues of about $17.6 billion. The value-added from our industry, that's all the things that go into it and all the people who depend upon us, was another $16.2 billion. Perhaps more importantly for the benefit of this committee, we employ 378,000 people across the country directly or indirectly. The wages and salaries of all these individuals came to about $6.7 billion last year.

Also, as I like to point out to our friends in government whenever I appear before these committees, the revenues generated for all three levels of government, or what most of us would probably know as taxes, were about $6.9 billion last year, with $3 billion going to the federal government. Again, that's something to underline. I'd like to point out that most of you look upon us as pretty good friends because of those numbers we generate for you.

This bill aims to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from using other workers, including existing non-bargaining employees, to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. Now the current part of part I of the Canada Labour Code came into being after years of hard work, including the task force headed up by Andrew Sims.

The Sims task force attempted to create a balance between the interests of employers with those of the workers. The title of the report, “Seeking a Balance”, I think is very telling. Unfortunately, it did not reach unanimity on the replacement worker issues. The majority report recommended a provision that would give employers flexibility in meeting their operating responsibilities, but would prevent them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.

After the report had been released and with the intervention of the Minister of Labour, the end result was a provision based upon the majority view. As such, the current version of part I was developed through a process that attempted to address the interests of all stakeholders, not those of just one stakeholder at the expense of others. But that is precisely what we believe Bill C-257 would do.

Further, it would undo years of effort of developing fair labour legislation at the federal level. Industries that fall under federal jurisdiction, including some hotels, have endured work stoppages over the years. This has caused many difficulties for Canadians and for Canadian businesses. There have been countless situations where back-to-work legislation has been required. This has significantly diminished since 1999, because we believe we now have a legislative framework that is more conducive to all the parties settling their own disputes.

The proposed legislative changes would negatively impact workers. The best protection for a worker who is on strike is to have confidence that there will be a job to return to. That is best assured by allowing that enterprise to remain operational during a strike. It is important to recognize that a hotel never closes. When a hotel does close, it is often very difficult to reopen. We all suffer, including our employees. This proposed legislation could most definitely result in this outcome.

While some suggest that banning the use of other workers would result in more industrial harmony, studies have shown that anti-replacement-worker legislation often results in an increase in strike incidents and duration. Therefore, longer strikes with limits on the enterprise's ability to continue operations can harm a worker's job security. If the bill is passed we will go back, unfortunately, to a far more contentious labour relations climate.

Therefore, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we recommend the change proposed in Bill C-257 should not go forward without a comprehensive review of its implications for Canadian businesses, the employment legislation review process, and the overall balance of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Pollard.

We're going to move next to Mr. Barnes.

I believe you're with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. You have seven minutes.

[Peter Barnes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. My name is Peter Barnes, and I'm president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. I too am pleased and indeed honoured to be here today to share our concerns about Bill C-257.

You should have in front of you a copy of our submission, which we filed with the clerk. The copy you have is in both official languages. We've also provided a copy of a report by Human Resources and Social Development Canada. It addresses many of the questions about investment and about strike duration and frequency, which I understand many committee members had asked about.

I'm here today to urge you not to proceed with this piece of legislation.

The CWTA is the authority on wireless issues, developments and trends in Canada. The association represents over 200 members in cellular and PCS, messaging, mobile radio, fixed wireless and mobile satellite carriers as well as companies that develop and produce products and services for the industry. Together, our members provide 95 per cent of the wireless services used by Canadians.

Our most pressing concern is for the safety of Canadians. We believe Bill C-257 will undermine public safety in Canada by preventing wireless telecommunications companies from maintaining the delivery of essential services to Canadians in the event of a strike or lockout. In addition, CWTA shares the concerns of other witnesses before this committee, concerns such as that the bill will significantly change the existing balance in part I of the Canada Labour Code without a full consultation; that a prohibition on replacement workers could lead to longer and indeed more frequent work stoppages; that Bill C-257 could require Parliament to pass back-to-work legislation in strike situations; and that Bill C-257 will damage Canada's economy, particularly with regard to small and medium-sized companies, as well as suppliers.

Recognizing their status as an enabling industry for all Canadians, telecommunications carriers join rail and banking as a federally regulated industry, bound by a range of federal legislation and statutes, in this case, the Canada Labour Code.

Nationally, Canada's wireless carriers employ approximately 15,000 people. Of these, the majority are unionized workers. Within each carrier, unionized workers undertake the majority of key operational requirements: including network operations — which includes the day to day maintenance and operation of the various networks provided by each carrier — engineering, maintenance, customer service, billing and other.

When I speak of wireless carriers, I want to emphasize that I do not mean only Bell, Rogers, and Telus. Among our membership, there are at least ten smaller regional carriers that serve communities like Thunder Bay, Kenora, or Prince Rupert. For these companies, the inability to meet their service commitments in a strike would be devastating to them—and to their communities, more importantly.

Canada's wireless telecommunications industry provides critical public safety and security services to municipalities, police, fire fighters, EMS, and to individual Canadians every day.

While most of us think of wireless telephony as being strictly a consumer product, wireless products and services are the backbone of the public safety and emergency response infrastructure in Canada. Wireless products and technologies are present in every aspect of Canada's safety infrastructure, helping hospitals, police forces, fire and ambulance services, and search and rescue teams do their jobs every day. In the case of police, for example, the various wireless services and technologies are part of the daily tools used by officers in the field. These provide uninterrupted, two-way communications between officers in a squad car under dispatch and services such as mobile fingerprinting, crime databases, and so on.

These, as I think you understand, can be a matter of life or death for officers in the field, allowing them to quickly identify suspects and be ready to respond appropriately to potentially dangerous situations within seconds. The majority of police forces use commercial networks managed by our members for these services.

Canada's wireless carriers currently meet the Solicitor General's standards of providing lawful access, upon receiving a warrant, to our voice networks. This means having dedicated security staff who work exclusively to provide police services on a 24/7 basis. We also provide a crucial role in assisting Canadians during emergency situations. Whether it was during the ice storm of 1998, the Vancouver mudslides, the fires in Kelowna, or the floods in Manitoba, wireless carriers were on the front lines working with emergency services personnel to provide a secure and fast communications channel for emergency assistance.

All of these services are conditional on having trained staff who can step in at a moment's notice with a robust, well-maintained infrastructure. In the event of a strike, with no ability to use any replacement workers except for select management personnel, wireless carriers would have grave difficulty providing these essential services. For these reasons, I would ask all honourable members to vote no to this bill.

I thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Barnes.

We're now going to move via teleconference to Vancouver. I believe we have Mr. Massy and Mr. Shniad.

You have seven minutes, gentlemen.

[Peter Massy]

Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to come before you to share our experiences as they relate to the issue of replacement workers.

My name is Peter Massy. I'm vice-president of the Telecommunications Workers Union, representing employees and members at Telus. Beside me is Sid Shniad, the TWU's research director.

We have submitted a six-page brief in French and English. It provides some background to the labour dispute between our union and Telus. The document focuses on these main points: the labour relations environment at Telus; the difficulties faced by the union; the road to confrontation; the growing imbalance in the economy; and finally, the role that replacement workers played in this dispute.

We would like to expand on the last point in the time allotted to us today.

First, we take the position that employers should not be permitted to hire replacement workers. It is our view that the section of the code that allows the use of replacement workers undermines the purpose of the Labour Code, as set out in its preamble.

And what are those purposes? According to the preamble, the purpose of the code is to balance the interests of unions and employers, to promote constructive collective bargaining practices, to encourage the development of good industrial relations, and to ensure that the just share of the fruit of progress is enjoyed by all segments of society.

The fact that Telus was able to use replacement workers in the course of our dispute makes it impossible for those goals to be pursued. The use of replacement workers created an imbalance, destroyed the collective bargaining process, and made it impossible for the union and its members to enjoy a just and shared fruit of progress.

The problems created by allowing the use of replacement workers do not begin when picket signs go up. They do not begin at the moment the first replacement worker crosses a picket line in Canada or the first offshore replacement worker takes a first call. They begin when the employer, confident of his ability to use replacement workers to impose his version of the collective agreement on an unwilling union, tables a set of concessionary bargaining demands.

At that point, an employer in the federal arena, who has embarked on a program to strip away hard-won collective agreement rights, knows two things. First, the provisions of section 87.4 of the code compel the union to come to a maintenance of activities agreement, which spells out how union members will maintain emergency services during the dispute. That includes police, fire, ambulance, 911, coast guard, and a variety of other services. You have a copy of that agreement in our brief.

Second, if they decide to bargain to an impasse in order to impose their will on their employees, they will be able to use replacement workers to maintain their operation while they keep their employees on the picket line until they are forced, by financial concerns or potential collapse of their union, to accept a concessionary contract.

In January 2003, the TWU signed an agreement with Telus stipulating that our members would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the labour dispute to repair telecommunications services for police, fire, ambulance, 911, hospitals, and the coast guard. By the end of 2003, the union had conclusive evidence that Telus was actively recruiting replacement workers, even though we were still in bargaining. This plus the fact that Telus was bargaining directly with our members led us to file a formal complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board about Telus' behaviour.

On January 19, 2004, the board issued a decision ordering Telus to offer the TWU binding arbitration as a way out of this impasse, but this decision was appealed by Telus, subsequently overturned in February 2005, and throughout that one-year period Telus continued to recruit replacement workers in Canada and offshore.

Bargaining recommenced March 2005, but the handwriting was already on the wall. Replacement workers in call centres in India and in the Philippines, as well as here in Canada, were ready. All that remained for Telus to do was to initiate a dispute.

The actual confrontation began July 21, when the union pulled its members off the job one day before Telus imposed the collective agreement it had spent five years trying to force the union to accept. The switches were thrown. Customer calls were diverted to replacement workers in India and in the Philippines.

On the ground in British Columbia and Alberta, our members were about to be subjected to an onslaught from employers of firms that specialized in strikebreakers. Their primary function was to escort the replacement workers across our picket lines, to continuously and aggressively videotape our members, and to gather or create evidence to be used for injunctions.

It was common for the employees of these firms to provoke confrontation on our picket line. Some of the replacement workers were transported through our picket lines in windowless vans. Others were escorted through our lines by the professional strikebreakers that Telus had hired. Some of the replacement workers were brought in from eastern Canada and the United States, and some of them had worked during the bitter disputes at Vidéotron, Aliant, and Entourage. They were provocative by their existence, and some went further, actively taunting our members.

In Alberta, replacement workers were encouraged to cross with offers of share options, generous per diems, gifts of iPods, and so on. Management was on the picket line actively encouraging employees to cross, and encouraging employees to recruit other replacement workers. Not surprisingly, the result was increased conflict, in some cases all-out chaos, and in all cases heightened levels of anxiety. In short, this was not an environment conducive to industrial harmony or the promotion of sound labour management relations.

This was a four-month labour dispute resulting in the termination of 49 employees, 70 employees charged with contempt, and 1,000 employees charged by the union for crossing picket lines. Canadian jobs, as well as the private, personal information of Canadian customers, were sent overseas, beyond the protection of Canadian privacy laws. Some of those replacement workers used by Telus during the dispute have returned as contractors.

At the end of the day, the union accepted a wage increase but lost significant job security protection, benefits to temporary employees, and workplace arrangements such as job sharing, which enabled employees to balance work and family commitments. The result runs counter to the purposes of the code and serves to undermine industrial relations in the workplace.

Finally, I would like to respond to the comments that since the publication of the Sims report there have not been problems, and that if it's not broke, don't fix it. There have been four major labour disputes that I know of, Videotron, Aliant, Entourage, and Telus, in which the employee came to the table demanding concession. In each of those disputes, the employer forced a confrontation and used replacement workers.

There is a problem: the system is broke, and you need to fix it by passing Bill C-257 before we have another dispute like the ones we have seen at Vidéotron, Aliant, Entourage, and Telus. We are not asking you to mend the labour relations between ourselves and Telus. That is our responsibility for the betterment of our members, the customers, and the company. But we are asking that you endorse Bill C-257, whose passage would be a significant message to our members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Massy and Mr. Shniad.

We're going to now move to our next speaker, for seven minutes.

Mr. Jennery.

[Nick Jennery, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Nick Jennery, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. I represent the small, medium, and large grocery distributors on both the retail and food service sides. It's about $72 billion on the retail side, and about $12 billion on the food service side, to companies that you may know, such as Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, and Safeway, as well as some of the smaller companies like Thrifty and Kitchen Table.

I have provided members of the committee with an annual report that describes in more detail who we are and what we do. I've also provided a fact sheet on the number of direct employees that we have. We have a little more than 428,000 in the industry. Finally, we do operate, through 24,000 stores, in every community in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I'm here to provide some input into Bill C-257 and to outline my industry's concerns with its provisions. For our sector and for the Canadian consumer, any legislation prohibiting replacement workers for companies that fall under the Canada Labour Code could have very serious implications for our industry. I do not believe this proposed legislation is in the interests of Canadians or Canadian business, and I have developed a submission for consideration by the standing committee. For today's purpose, I did want to highlight just three specific concerns.

The first concern is our industry's dependency on the transportation sector. My members account for about 85% of all the grocery products that are distributed in Canada to all of those 24,000 stores, hospitals, restaurants, institutions, and long-term care facilities, and each one of those products passes through a distribution or a retail network.

CCGD members do not fall under the Canada Labour Code per se, but we are reliant on rail and interprovincial trucking to do that and to meet the food needs of Canadians. At any one time, if you take over a two-week period, there are approximately 10,000 food shipments either in rail or on trucks in transit. This is equivalent to hundreds of millions of kilograms of food.

There is not a significant excess capacity in the transport sector, and CCGD members operate on a just-in-time inventory basis. At any one time, we have between three and ten days of inventory in the pipeline, and our efficiency is also our vulnerability. This means that if a sizable transport company such as CN or CP is prevented from providing services due to a strike and anti-replacement-worker legislation in place, significant supply disruptions will occur.

My industry has experienced two significant labour-related transportation disruptions in recent years: the Port of Vancouver disruption in 2005, and the Atlantic trucking dispute in 2003. Just to give you a flavour of what happened, a huge portion of food supply for Atlantic Canada is shipped in by truck, especially during the winter months. A labour disruption in 2003, with a blockade that lasted only two days, resulted in shortages of food and required the direct intervention of the Premier of Nova Scotia. Both examples are relatively minor compared to what would occur if CN or CP or one of their major rail yards were prevented from operating due to anti-replacement-worker legislation.

The second point I'd like to make to the members of the committee is the balance of powers during the negotiation or collective bargaining process. Proponents of Bill C-257 are claiming that anti-replacement-worker legislation is necessary to introduce a balance within the collective bargaining process, since, without the legislation, unionized employers under the Canada Labour Code are permitted to continue operating during a strike. This is simply not the case.

Under the present provisions of the code, fairness and equity are maintained during the collective bargaining process through two powers that balance each other and ensure that both parties are equally motivated to achieve a fair and equitable agreement. These powers are the employees' right to strike, balanced by an employer's ability to try to withstand a strike through the continuation of operations.

The employees' right to strike is supported by their ability to receive strike pay from the organizing body and the employees' ability to seek temporary or alternative work during the strike. Banning the use of replacement workers hinders the ability of the employer to withstand a strike, and dramatically increases the bargaining power of the employees during the collective bargaining process.

Anti-replacement-worker legislation introduces a bias against the employer and swings the collective bargaining process dramatically in favour of the employee or the unions.

The third point I want to quickly make is about the competitive impact on our industry. I've mentioned the size of our industry, and we're clearly in the fight of our life. We're a 1% to 2% after-tax business, with labour being the second-largest input into the industry.

CCGD members operating in both Quebec and British Columbia have had extensive experience with anti-replacement-worker legislation. With provincial anti-replacement-worker legislation, the threat of being unable to continue operations in the event of a labour dispute has decreased the bargaining power of employers during contract negotiations and it has translated directly into higher supplements and increased costs for unionized employers. In a highly competitive environment, unionized employers are increasingly competing in all sectors of the economy against non-union competitors.

Implementing anti-replacement-worker provisions will further undermine the competitiveness of unionized employers and provide non-union employers with a government-regulated advantage. The outcome of this will be that Bill C-257 will translate into increased costs for the users of services of unionized companies that fall under the Canada Labour Code.

Given the reliance of virtually all aspects of the Canadian industry on this sector, it is ultimately the Canadian consumer who will pay for the costs of Bill C-257, in the form of higher prices for a very broad spectrum of goods and services. Bill C-257, in our opinion, may actually endanger the unionized jobs it is endeavouring to protect, and it is a reality of the modern global marketplace that businesses must remain cost-competitive in order to survive.

To conclude, I believe the Canada Labour Code and the powers of the Labour Relations Board provide boundaries on the use of replacement workers and ensure that both parties are equally motivated to achieve a mutually beneficial collective agreement. Bill C-257 would upset the balance between employers and unions in the collective bargaining process. In the long term, this will undermine the ability of employers to bargain effectively and will have a tremendous impact on the competitiveness of unionized employers versus domestic and global competitors. CCGD is most concerned about the potential of the bill to hamper our ability to feed and service Canadian consumers, your constituents. As such, we are opposed to the implementation of this legislation.

I believe the government has a responsibility to Canadians rather than to any party at the collective bargaining table. Therefore, the government must ensure that labour legislation does not hamper the access of Canadians to basic needs, such as what my members distribute.

I would urge members of the standing committee to reconsider their support of this legislation in light of its far-reaching social and economic implications, and I'm most happy to assist the committee in any way in providing further information, as you see fit.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Jennery.

We're now going to move on to the Canadian Trucking Alliance. We have Mr. Bradley with us, and Mr. Cooper.

Welcome. You have seven minutes.

[David Bradley, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is David Bradley. I'm CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance. We represent in excess of 4,500 trucking companies across Canada.

It is our view that Bill C-257 is unnecessary, and if you'll bear with me, I'd like to explain why.

First, a little bit about our industry. We are the dominant mode of freight transportation in the country. We touch 90% of all consumer products and foodstuffs, and we make an exceedingly important contribution in terms of Canada's international trade, hauling two-thirds, by value, of Canada's trade with the United States.

The broader trucking industry includes for-hire carriers, which can be either federally or provincially regulated, and private carriers, which are those that move their own goods and are provincially regulated. The industry employs in excess of 350,000 Canadians. Those are direct jobs.

A third of the total trucking labour force are employee drivers in the for-hire trucking sector—and when I say employee drivers, that's distinct from the independent owner-operator contractor.

The proportion of truck drivers who fall under the federal labour regulations is not known with certainty, but according to HRSDC, just over 100,000 employees in trucking are covered by at least some part of the Canada Labour Code.

Trucking is made up predominantly of small firms. About 78% of employee drivers work for companies with fewer than 100 people, and 39% work for companies employing fewer than 20.

The level of unionization in our industry—at no more than 20% of employee drivers—is relatively low compared to the general workforce.

With regard to Bill C-257, for us it's a question of balance. Collective bargaining is a question of balance. Parties to any negotiation attempt to gain an upper hand through various means. The role of the regulatory environment is to try to ensure a level playing field and to maintain the appropriate balance in negotiations, not to confer the upper hand to either party through legislation or regulation.

In our view, the current climate of labour relations in the trucking industry would suggest that balance exists. While the level of unionization, as I said, is low, the portion of the industry that is unionized is characterized by stable labour relations. In the period 2000 to 2006, there were only seven work stoppages in the trucking industry in companies regulated by part I of the Canada Labour Code. The average length of work stoppage during that period was 15.5 days. There were no strikes or lockouts by companies under federal jurisdiction in either 2004 or 2005. Not known in these work stoppages is the degree to which replacement workers were used. However, we feel that there were very few, if any, used.

The nature and structure of the trucking industry has characteristics that promote balance and labour stability. For one, competition is always vigorous and often fierce. There are at least 10,000 for-hire trucking companies competing for freight, and that's a reflection of economic deregulation that has existed in our industry since the late-1980s. Economic deregulation and fierce competition dictate that carriers will survive only if costs are controlled and if they provide the service to which their customers have become accustomed.

Trucking service is a perishable service. It's not like a manufactured product, where if you don't get your price today it can sit on the shelf until another customer comes in tomorrow. We don't have that luxury in the trucking industry. If a carrier's not happy with the price it is able to obtain for its service, there's always someone else who will take the freight, either at that price or at a lower price.

There's competition not only for freight but also for qualified drivers. There's a lot of driver mobility, and the resulting turnover or churn in the industry is extremely high. In some sectors it approaches 100%. So in the event of a protracted strike at a trucking company, the organization would soon be out of business. Competitors would move quickly to take over that freight.

From a broader societal view, we raise the following concerns. Trucking serves every community accessible by road. In remote areas, many communities are served only by truck, and delays in delivering to Canada's most vulnerable communities could be devastating for its residents.

Of particular concern is the volume of just-in-time freight delivered across Canada and into the United States. Transportation disruptions in just-in-time delivery could affect our major trading partner's confidence in the cross-border supply chain, resulting in reduced sourcing of products from Canada.

In the event of a labour stoppage in other federally regulated freight modes such as rail, we simply do not have the capacity, nor do we have the kind of equipment, that would be used to move most of what rail does. So it would prevent us from taking up any slack that there may be.

The potential to have transportation services halted, ports closed, and intermodal facilities shut down would be felt by all Canadians.

As I said at the outset, we feel that Bill C-257 is unnecessary. Some have even referred to it as a solution in search of a problem. Evidence from jurisdictions across Canada shows that either banning or allowing replacement workers has little or no impact on the frequency or duration of work stoppages.

Again, according to HRSDC, the average number of working days lost because of strikes has gone down in nearly all provinces in the past several decades—including British Columbia, where there is a ban, and Ontario, where there is not. The existence of or the lack of anti-replacement-worker legislation appears to have nothing to do with this general trend in labour relations.

Parliamentary intervention to order employees back to work occurred frequently before 1999, when the amendments to the Canada Labour Code prevented the necessity of such legislation. Bill C-257 would turn the clock back. Pressures for return-to-work legislation to assure continuity of essential services could again become the norm.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

We're now going to start our first round with the opposition.

Mr. Silva, seven minutes, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming before the committee.

I want to have some basic questions answered, if possible, from all the speakers--

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but I can't hear the simultaneous interpretation. I don't know what's going on.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

You have to speak a little louder.

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

Now I hear it. Thank you.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

All right.

To the Hotel Association of Canada, can you please tell me what percentage of your members would be unionized?

[Anthony Pollard]

Are we talking about what comes under this legislation, about the number of hotels that are federally regulated, or about the numbers that are unionized right across the board?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Well, unless you're unionized, you're not affected by the legislation. What percentage is unionized and what percentage is not?

[Anthony Pollard]

The portion that's unionized is about 60%.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay.

To the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, could you tell me what percentage is unionized?

[Peter Barnes]

The percentage is similar, Mr. Silva. It's a majority and it's close to 60%.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, same question.

[Nick Jennery]

About 70%.