Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on replacement workers, we'll now continue to hear our witnesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to start with the Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce because they have some time restrictions on their end and wanted to make their submission.

Because we have three of you via teleconference, I will identify who I'd like to speak next. We're going to go with seven minutes of opening statements. I will indicate when you've got one minute left, so you don't have to look at your own stopwatch. We will proceed with a couple of rounds of questions--a seven-minute round, followed by a five-minute round.

Typically we'll have the MPs address the question. They may want to address the Hamilton chamber or the Winnipeg chamber. If you'd like to make a comment and there's some time, you can just identify yourselves as the Hamilton chamber, for example, and then the teleconference experts will make sure they put the camera on the appropriate chamber.

We'll get started with the testimony. I have some announcements, but since we don't have all our members here yet, I'll save that until after we've had a chance to hear from the opening witnesses before we start our rounds of questioning. By that time, hopefully, we'll have all our members.

I would like to welcome the Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce. I believe we have Mr. Douglas Coles and Ms. Kathryn Coll.

Please go ahead, Mr. Coles, for seven minutes.

[Douglas Coles, Second Vice-Président, Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much.

The Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce is a non-profit organization made up of business and professional people sharing a common goal: the economic development of the greater Charlottetown area. With over 740 members, the chamber represents a diverse network of small, medium-sized, and large businesses from almost every industry sector and business profession. Because Charlottetown is home to the headquarters of Veterans Affairs Canada and is a provincial capital, there are a number of federal public sector employers in our community with whom our local businesses have a vital business relationship.

It is the chamber's position that significant changes to the labour act, such as the prohibition of the use of replacement workers, fundamentally alters the basic premise for labour-management relations and potentially threatens the continuity of essential services provided by critical infrastructure workers. Such a change should not be made without a thorough understanding of what gap in the existing labour relations structure the amendment purports to resolve and a careful examination of the consequences to ensure that the overall result of the change will be beneficial.

Legislative changes that have the potential to destabilize federal labour-management relations may have serious repercussions for our members. Our members are very vulnerable to labour instability for the following reasons.

Many of our members are small to medium-sized businesses with limited capacity to absorb losses or delays arising from labour instability within federally regulated organizations, customers, or suppliers.

Because of the size of our province, chamber members are highly dependent upon the interprovincial transportation system for importing supplies and exporting product. Any labour instability related to federally regulated transportation will have a significant impact on our members' ability to conduct business.

The balance of power in labour-management relations is already shifting as the labour supply tightens and it becomes a sellers' market.

It is the chamber's position that significant changes to the labour act, such as the prohibition of the use of replacement workers, fundamentally alters the basic premise for labour-management relations. Again, any change cannot be made without a thorough understanding of what the amendment purports to resolve.

Legislative bans on permanent replacement workers exist in most jurisdictions in Canada. This means that striking workers have the right to their job once the strike is over. They cannot be permanently replaced by replacement workers who may have been temporarily hired during the strike.

The more stringent ban on the use of temporary replacement workers has been in place in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993, and in Ontario between 1993 and 1995. The chamber suggests that consideration of the labour relations climate in these provinces would indicate that such bans on even temporary replacement workers can have a polarizing effect on collective bargaining and a serious impact on the economy.

The chamber does not believe that Bill C-257 remedies any existing weakness in the labour relations framework in Canada. Indeed, the chamber is at a loss to understand what benefits would result from the passing of the legislation. Is there evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages? Is there evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the duration of work stoppages? Is there evidence that Canadian workers are being paid unfairly by employers?

In the 1990s, the Canada Labour Code underwent a careful review, involving thorough consultation with stakeholders, resulting in several important changes to the code, including a recourse for the unions that believe employers are abusing the use of replacement workers in order to undermine the union. Furthermore, the amendments provided protection for striking workers to be reinstated ahead of any replacement workers.

The chamber submits that there is no ostensible failing in the existing legislation that requires such a drastic change, and there has also not been sufficient study and consultation with the affected parties to fully appreciate how such a prohibition would affect all stakeholders.

Bill C-257 would create a distortion in the balance of negotiating power between employers and unions. While striking employees have the right to find work elsewhere, employers do not have the right to seek other workers. If the option to use replacement workers is removed from the labour relations model, the options for the employer would become more extreme: to have to accept the union's position; to face a complete shutdown of operations for the duration of the strike; or to go to government and seek back-to-work orders and binding arbitration.

The use of replacement workers does not undermine the power of unions in strike situations. Given the increasing difficulty in recruiting workers in even the best working conditions, finding workers who are capable and competent to perform the work and who are willing to face the negative messaging and ill will that is targeted at replacement workers is a significant challenge. Employers do not readily opt for this approach, if there is any possibility of negotiating a deal with the unions.

Bill C-257 is more drastic than existing comparable legislation in British Columbia, because it denies employees the right to cross picket lines. Furthermore, it makes no provision for essential services. Hence, strikes involving critical infrastructure workers could bring entire service sectors across Canada to a grinding halt.

In conclusion, Bill C-257 is an echo of legislation in place in the province of Quebec that has had negative effects on both labour relations and the economy in that province.

Bill C-257 is a proposal that lacks a clear purpose and a balanced benefit. The bill has proceeded to this point of review without due consultation of its potential impact on the labour relations framework in Canada. Our chamber urges the committee to recommend against the passage of Bill C-257.

This is respectfully submitted by John Gaudet, president of Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Coles.

Ms. Coll, how do you pronounce your name?

[Kathryn Coll, Chair, Human Resource Development Committee, Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce]

“Call”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

“Call”. Thank you very much.

I know you won't be able to answer any questions as we go through the rest of it, but I want to thank you for making your submission. We understand that you'll have to check out in about another 15 minutes.

We'll go through the rest of the presentations, and once again, thank you for taking the time to be with us via teleconference today.

[Douglas Coles]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We will move back across to Mr. Secord, as well as to Mr. Anderson, from the United Transportation Union.

Once again, gentlemen, thank you for being here today. You have seven minutes as well, if you'd like to start.

Thank you very much for being here.

[Tim Secord, Canadian Legislative Director, United Transportation Union]

Thank you, Chair.

The United Transportation Union is an international trade union with over 125,000 members throughout Canada and the United States. We represent employees in the railway, bus, and airline industries, with a preponderance of our membership working in federal juridiction in Canada. Our members contribute heavily to the economic and social fabric of Canadian society at every level and in almost every community. Our members work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, in one of the most dangerous and demanding industries in Canada.

Currently, we're in contract negotiations with CN Rail with a strike and lockout deadline of February 9, 2007, looming before us. The committee should be aware that in accordance with the provisions of part 1 of the code, we sought a maintenance of activities agreement with CN; however, CN determined that no such agreement was necessary. In addition to the written text of this brief, the committee should also be aware that we've twice reached out to CN rail for a maintenance of activities agreement to deal with the issue of commuter transit in Toronto and Montreal, and still today there has been no response from CN.

We're pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee on this most important issue. We believe Bill C-257 can improve part 1 of the code by building a measure of fairness into it that currently does not exist. We believe this bill to be in the public interest and in the interest of fairness between workplace parties as a whole.

Labour law in Canada has long recognized the right to strike. This right provides a union its strongest opportunity for economic sanction to be leveraged on an employer through collective withdrawal of their services by its members to support its position in collective bargaining. The right to fair and free collective bargaining has been a fundamental right within our society for a very long time and is consistent with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted in 1998. This right to strike is fundamental to the Canada Labour Code and is but one of the many rights and obligations that govern labour relations in the federal sector.

The code acts as the vehicle by which both workplace parties, through their collective agreement relationship, can assure labour peace and measurable costs and benefits for a specific amount of time. The requirements related to the duty of fair representation and the grievance and arbitration process make sure workplace differences are resolved. The only opportunity a union has to bring economic pressure to bear on the employer is through the bargaining process, by exercising their right to strike at the expiration of an agreement; this committee knows full well that only 3% of collective agreement disputes ever get to the point of a strike or lockout situation.

Economically speaking, the balance of power between an employer and a union at the beginning of a strike is influenced by things both are entitled to consider. The union has to decide whether it will withdraw its services by engaging in a strike, while the employer must decide if they should hang onto positions that might result in a strike. Both parties begin a process whereby they determine, on the one hand, their ability to withstand a strike, and on the other hand, their acceptance of economic pressure through a strike.

The right to strike, as with all aspects of a union's functions, is set out carefully in the code. It is this process that provides a balance between the rights and obligations of the workplace parties in their relationship.

Replacement workers, not being a part of the bargaining unit, are strangers to that bargaining relationship. They have no level of participation in the collective bargaining process, nor do they have a community of interest with the employer. Replacement workers do not vote in the democratic process that seeks a strike mandate, and bringing replacement workers into the workplace interferes with the balance of power that the workplace parties have established and measured at the beginning of a strike. Research has shown linkages between the introduction of replacement workers and numerous negative effects. These negative effects include greater picket-line violence and unnecessarily prolonged strike action.

When replacement workers are brought into a strike situation, they normally come into direct contact with picketers and other union members who may also support the strike. This type of contact is counterproductive, inflammatory, and disruptive. Picketers view replacement workers with contempt, because they are aliens to the historical relationship between the employer and the striking employees. The replacement workers are seen as a means to dilute the economic pressure being placed on the strike-bound employer.

Such circumstances and the emotions involved become a recipe for escalating picket line incidents and increased vigilance, if and when violence should unfortunately occur.

It's in no one's interest to see violence occur at any time; however, there are a few examples when an unscrupulous employer has relied on this type of provocation to intimidate striking workers. Violence on picket lines can only poison relationships for years to come, in the workplace and in the community.

The effects of these poisoned relationships remain long after the strike is ended. If a picketer engages in criminal conduct, he or she is disciplined for it. That discipline is then handled under the collective bargaining agreement, and it has a tendency to delay the duration and the resolution of strikes.

Additionally, when all is considered together, these dynamics are harmful and will likely damage and/or interfere in the re-establishment of the bargaining relationship over the term of the next agreement.

Members of this committee understand the obligations and responsibilities that unions have under the code, and we're equally confident you are also aware of the employer's obligations and rights under the code. In the interests of time, we won't reiterate them here.

Suffice it to say that there are ample checks and balances built into the code, including numerous prohibitive clauses. Without getting into the morass of statistics, we believe the issue that needs to be looked at is what labour relations are like when replacement workers are used and what they're like when they aren't.

If one believes there's a balance of power under the code during a strike when replacement workers are allowed, then how is that balance maintained when an employer locks out its employees?

With that, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I'll close and thank the members of the committee for their time, and certainly the members of Parliament who saw this bill through to this level—and beyond, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Secord and Mr. Anderson.

I'm going to move to teleconference now, with the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce.

Would you make sure your microphones are on mute; we can hear some sirens in the background. When you start speaking, you can unmute your microphone. That would be great.

We're going to go to the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. We have Mr. Falco and Mr. Tufts. Welcome, Hamilton. You have seven minutes, please.

[Len Falco, President, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Len Falco, and as president of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce I would like to thank the chair and honourable members of this committee for allowing us the opportunity to appear today.

I am also speaking as the owner and operator of a full-service recruiting and staffing company that specializes in general staffing and human resources consulting.

My co-presenter this afternoon is Mr. Bill Tufts, who is the chair of our human resources committee at the Hamilton chamber. The human resources committee monitors employment, labour, and workplace legislation.

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce is one of Canada's most active local chambers, acting as Hamilton's recognized voice of business continually since 1845. We are in fact the oldest, largest, and most broadly based organization extant in the broader Golden Horseshoe, outside of the GTA.

Today we are comprised of over 1,900 individual members who represent 1,150 businesses and organizations of all sizes and sectors that collectively employ 75,000 people full time, in all parts of the city, and indeed many beyond our municipal boundaries.

It is essential to state that our broader membership also includes not-for-profit organizations and unionized corporations. In fact, we were one of the first chambers to actively embrace unions and welcome them to the city of Hamilton.

Hamilton is an important central transportation and distribution hub for road, air, marine, and rail. If Bill C-257 is passed, it would have an immense negative impact on Hamilton's economy and our industries, an effect that will be replicated all across Canada, from sea to sea to sea.

Additionally, we show complete support to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce regarding their views of Bill C-257.

The city of Hamilton has a superb transportation network, which is located at the centre of the Golden Horseshoe's industrial corridor. It has direct access to Toronto and points eastward as well as to the United States via Detroit or Buffalo along Highways 401 and 403 and the Queen Elizabeth Way.

The port of Hamilton handles over 12 million tonnes of cargo and is visited by over 700 vessels each year. This ranks Hamilton as the busiest of all Canadian Great Lakes ports.

A 2001 Stamm study determined that almost 4% of Ontario’s GDP and 30% of the greater Hamilton region's GDP is directly or indirectly connected to the operations centred on the port of Hamilton. This translates into an employment equivalent, considering both indirect and direct impacts, of approximately 220,000 jobs.

Since privatization, Hamilton International Airport’s airport-related workforce has grown from 726 to more than 1,300 full-time equivalent employees. Under TradePort management, passenger traffic at the Hamilton terminal has increased from 90,000 in 1996 to approximately 900,000 in 2002 and growing. Air cargo has increased by 50% since 1996. In 2002, 91,000 metric tonnes of cargo passed through the airport.

CN's Hamilton Metals Distribution Centre is located in the heart of Canada's largest steel-consuming market. The facility is home to Canada's steel manufacturing, distribution, and processing industry, and is located in one of North America's largest vehicle production areas. Furthermore, CN's Hamilton MDC is strategically positioned to do business in the largest Canada-U.S. steel corridor.

Proposed subsection 94(2.4) of Bill C-257 states:

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

This provision contained in Bill C-257 will have the following impact on the health and well-being of Canadians.

First, it will undermine the dependability of Canada’s infrastructure industries. Continuity of service in the federally regulated infrastructure industries is important to virtually all Canadian enterprises, not just those under federal jurisdiction.

For example, if a work stoppage took place in the transportation network, with services halted, ports closed, and so on, it would be felt by all Canadians and Canada's trading partners who rely on an uninterrupted flow of goods. Most federal businesses are providers of services where the ability to stockpile goods does not exist.

Secondly, it would detract from Canada’s attractiveness as a place in which to invest. In an era of global mobility of investment, potential investors to Canada would also negatively perceive such a provision.

Bill.

[Bill Tufts, Chair, Human Resources Committee, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce]

Good afternoon.

It is well understood that federally regulated industries, such as transportation, telecommunications, and financial services, provide services essential to Canadians and Canadian business, as they constitute the framework of a well-functioning Canadian society and economy. Federally regulated companies are service providers to all Canadians and bear the responsibility of ensuring that goods, services, capital, and people flow freely across the country and across borders.

Whenever there is a work stoppage involving a federal sector employee, two outcomes generally occur. First, the work stoppage causes considerable national economic disruption. The shutdown of a federal employer—an airline, trucking company, broadcaster, or postal service—has wide-ranging consequences for Canadian society and businesses, which depend on the uninterrupted provision of such services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There's one minute left.

[Bill Tufts]

Thank you.

Further, in some cases the federal employer is often the only entity that provides the services, with no alternative replacement available. This may lead to the second impact. Parliament passes back-to-work legislation shortly after the commencement of the work stoppage, as a disruption of such services cannot be tolerated for any prolonged period.

In conclusion, the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce shows their complete support for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce regarding Bill C-257 and reiterates the following: there is no evidence that enacting Bill C-257 will result in reduced work stoppages and durations; there is credible data provided by the federal government that refutes the false assumption that enacting Bill C-257 will bring fewer and shorter work stoppages.

We currently have a fair and balanced system, developed through consultation with both business and labour, that respects the interests of both employers and employees in dealing with work stoppages. In the opinion of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, Bill C-257 will disrupt the balance we currently have in place. Don't change it just to benefit one party, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, gentlemen from the Hamilton chamber, Mr. Falco as well as Mr. Tufts.

We're now going to move to the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, and I believe we have with us Mr. Angus and Mr. Gardner. You have seven minutes, gentlemen.

[David Angus, President and Chief Executive Officer, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 1,800 companies and is the largest business association in Winnipeg, made up of small, medium, and large businesses representing all different sectors of business, thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee today on this important piece of legislation.

Joining me today as the individual doing our presentation is Bill Gardner. Bill is a partner with Pitblado LLP, a prominent law firm here in Winnipeg. He's also the chair of the Manitoba Employers Council, which is a group made up of 31 different associations, large employers, and really represents the collective business voice on all issues related to employment.

I'll pass it over to Bill Gardner.

[Bill Gardner, Member, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Dave.

Mr. Chairperson and honourable members, I submit, with respect, that Bill C-257 is a classic example of bad labour legislation, and I would propose eight reasons for it not to be passed.

First, I suggest that any piece of legislation that is vehemently opposed by one side or the other is likely ill-advised, because the foundation upon which labour relations is built in our system depends upon consent, agreement, and compromise. My labour friends well know that Canadian workers don't react particularly well when something is rammed down their throats; there is no reason to suggest that anything would be different with respect to Canadian employers.

Second, Bill C-257 represents a dramatic change in the balance of bargaining power, and such a change should not be contemplated without a correspondingly serious need. I don't see such a need existing today across Canada.

Third, labour legislation that bans the use of replacement workers inherently affects different employers differently and is thus discriminatory. If you are a large multi-jurisdictional multi-plant employer, you can have one or more of your operations go down without a correspondingly serious effect. On the other hand, if you are a single-operation independent locally owned business, shutdown of your operation can very quickly be fatal. These types of businesses are the so-called small business operations that government and other organizations generally say are to be encouraged, and that studies show to be the greatest job creators in our economy today, yet this legislation would impact them in correspondingly detrimental way.

Fourth, Bill C-257--and you've heard this from some of the other presenters--has been drafted and, I would suggest, rushed through Parliament without the sort of extensive consultation that should occur well before even the initial drafting phase. None of that has happened in this case.

Fifth--again, you've heard this before--in the 1990s, under the previous Liberal administration, there was a process of extensive consultation regarding the labour code and this issue in particular, which was addressed and found its way into amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Of course, this was without going specifically anywhere nearly as far as Bill C-257 proposes to go.

Sixth, nothing since then has happened would justify considering that the circumstances have dramatically changed.

Seventh, the labour climate in fact appears to be fairly positive throughout Canada. I refer to the able presentation from the gentleman from the United Transportation Union, who suggested that only 3% of collective bargaining situations result in a strike. I can't verify that precise number, but it certainly corresponds with my impression that generally speaking the course of labour relations federally has been relatively smooth in the last few years.

Finally, the fact that the legislation exists in Quebec and British Columbia is no more reason to adopt it federally than the fact that it doesn't exist in eight out of ten other provinces is a reason not to do so. It would be impudent for me to suggest that I know what's good for the people of Quebec or British Columbia. That would be up to others, who know those areas better, but the fact that these pieces of legislation exist in two of our provincial jurisdictions is simply not a good reason to do it.

Those are my respectful submissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Angus and Mr. Gardner.

We're now going to move to our last witness for today. We have Mr. Richard Bell, from Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Incorporated.

[Dr. Richard Bell, General Manager and Chief Operating Officer, Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today and for providing me with this opportunity to comment on Bill C- 257. I consider, for various reasons, that this proposed piece of legislation will only derail and hinder operations of rail service that are considered essential by those who benefit from it, such as the railway I represent.

First, let me introduce myself and describe the company I represent. I'm the general manager and chief operating officer of Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc., the first aboriginal-owned and -operated railway in North America, and perhaps the world. The shareholders of this railway are the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, the band council of Matimekush—Lac John Innu, and Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam. Each owns one third of the shares of the company.

When the QNS&L decided to stop providing passenger service, the Government of Canada did not see any other alternative to ensure the 800 Naskapi, 700 Innu, and 250 non-natives living in Schefferville remained connected with the rest of Quebec than to set up this railway. Most of Tshiuetin Rail's financial needs are covered by the Government of Canada, which acknowledges that this service is essential to their survival.

Tshiuetin acquired 135 miles of rail line from the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway, or QNS&L. The rail line is located between Schefferville, Quebec, and Emeril Junction, a midpoint some 225 miles north of Sept-Îles, Quebec, and some 80 kilometres from Labrador City, Newfoundland. QNS&L still owns and operates the line between Emeril Junction and Sept-Îles.

Our passenger train departs from Sept-Îles on Mondays and Thursdays, returning from Schefferville on Tuesdays and Fridays. We own the locomotives and the cars used for the service, which include baggage cars, passenger coaches, and even a dining car. But moreover, it is manned and operated by our own crews, which at the present time are 100% Innu and Naskapi. However, while Tshiuetin is on QNS&L track, which runs between Sept-Îles and Emeril, our locomotive engineer is replaced by a QNS&L locomotive operator. Once at Emeril, our crew takes over the rest of the way to Schefferville.

The acquisition of this line by the Innu and Naskapi people has provided them with an opportunity to show the rest of the province of Quebec and Canada that they are a proud people, and that, if given the chance, they can stand on their own feet and contribute their fair share to the advancement of the north.

QNS&L, as ourselves, is a federally regulated railway. We have no unionized employees, but they do. Some 50 locomotive engineers are UTU members. I cannot and will not speculate on what their union would do if there was a strike at QNS&L. There is no guarantee that the passenger service between Sept-Îles and Emeril would be maintained either by unionized employees or by QNS&L management.

With the QNS&L decision to get out of passenger train operation, and since their core business is iron ore—from Labrador City—it only stands to reason where their priority would be placed if they had scarce resources to maintain their operation. Without talking too much about this technical point, it seems to me that the definition of managers in Bill C-257 might seriously reduce the number of persons who can be used during a strike to replace regular workers. In addition, the English version of proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the bill seems to limit what can be done in terms of operation.

Bill C-257 does not contain any provisions dealing with essential services—and trust me, essential service is exactly what this train is for the population it serves. We are the first aboriginal railway, not only because of our ownership but also because of our customers; 75% of them are first nations people.

Maybe we should stop for a minute and try to define what an essential service is. To me and to the people I represent, eating is essential. Most of the food comes to the Schefferville area by train, and so do the clothes they wear. Being able to move around by car and Ski-Doo is essential, so they need gasoline. Fuel for planes, helicopters, and heavy machinery is also essential and also moves by rail.

The railway is the only ground link between Schefferville and the rest of Quebec. There are no roads connecting this region with the rest of the province. The region is, thus, highly dependent on rail transportation. Moving people, food, fuel, and everyday essentials for that matter can only be done by rail or by plane. But plane is very expensive. A one-way rail trip ticket from Sept-Îles to Schefferville is $62.82. The airfare is $690, some 10 times more.

Now, 1,750 people may not be a lot of people when they're not hungry, but wait until the train doesn't come in with the food they need.

The town of Sept-Îles serves as the main supply point for communities in the Schefferville region. More than 73,000 tonnes of products of all types—general merchandise, gasoline and fuel, automobiles, and so on—are transported annually from Sept-Îles to Schefferville. If the train were to stop for only one week, it would mean that 1,400 tonnes of goods and products wouldn't make it to Schefferville. It would also mean a loss of revenue of about $480,000 for the Sept-Îles suppliers.

Currently, more than 16,000 passengers ride the train each year. This year 807 people took the train to go to Sept-Iles to access medical services not available in their community. Without the train, these people would have had to take the airplane, which is much more expensive. In addition, there are 45 camps located along the track and used by the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam and Matimekush-Lac John communities for fishing, hunting, and trapping trips. They need the train service that travels between these camps and their home.

If the rail service were to be interrupted as a result of a strike, Schefferville region would no longer be supplied with provisions and products of all types, outfitters along the track would no longer be supplied with provisions and would suffer economically as hunters, and fishermen would no longer have access to the outfitters' camps along the way. Members of the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam and Matimekush-Lac John community would no longer have access to their hunting, fishing, and trapping grounds, which is ancestral territory. For a limited number of families, hunting and fishing provide food for part of the year.

I did not want to speculate earlier on what unionized employees would do, so I would not speculate on the reaction of the aboriginal people. But let me guess: they wouldn't be very happy.

If you cannot amend this bill, and I'm told you can't, to include essential service, such as a mixed passenger and freight train service that I provide to the communities in northern Quebec, then don't waste your time with this legislation that will create more problems than there are to be corrected.

The first nations people have ancestral hunting and fishing grounds—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Bell.

[Dr. Richard Bell]

—that are accessible by rail service only. They would go by plane, but most cannot afford it. To suddenly deprive these people of their rights and take away what they have already come to rely on would not be in the best interests of all of Canada. Bill C-257 will seriously impact our freedom to move and to provide the northern communities with essential rail service.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Bell. You're right on time.

Before we start our line of questioning, I'm going to do a couple of housekeeping matters, and then we will start with the Liberals.

I want to introduce to everyone Graeme Truelove, who started with us last week. He is a clerk in training, rather like an apprentice. I don't think Christine has any notions of firing him or anything, but he's going to be apprenticing as a clerk over the next little while with Christine. We want to welcome Graeme Truelove here.

The second thing is that we will have bells at 5:30 for a vote. I think all members are aware of that, but I wanted to mention that as well.

The last thing I want to mention is that there have been a couple of requests.

Mr. Silva has requested a comparison of Bill C-257 as it relates to the Quebec and the B.C. labour code—whatever that may be.

As well, Mr. Martin requested a study of disruption of essential services in Quebec and B.C. The researcher, Kevin, indicates to me that this has been found and is in translation right now and will be distributed to the respective offices on Friday, hopefully.

We have it right now, and the goal is to have it translated and out to your offices—hopefully by Friday.

Those are all the announcements I have. Let's get right into the questioning. We start with the Liberals. Mr. Silva is splitting his time with Mr. Savage.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I thank the witnesses for being here. Some of them, such as Mr. Bell, I have already had an opportunity to meet in person in my office.

I want to get some clarification. Mr. Coles, when he spoke, mentioned that management is not allowed to cross the picket line. I'm not clear where that is in legislation, or where he was reading it from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Coles has gone. Do you want to address any of the other chambers?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It was Mr. Coles who raised the issue, so I thought.... Okay, fair enough.

Some of them also spoke—I'm not sure who, but I thought it was also Mr. Coles—about the negative effects in Quebec. Again I'm going to ask the witnesses whether there's any empirical evidence they could provide the committee. I would greatly appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Does any chamber want to address that?