Human Resources Committee on Feb. 7th, 2007

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all.

My first question is for Mr. Vines.

In your submission you indicate that any change to this particular provision in the existing code would likely cause an increase in the board's caseload. Do you anticipate that this is going to cost you money? Are you going to have to bring in more resources to handle this change?

[John Vines]

The most important thing for the Canadian Industrial Relations Board is the appointment process. When you look at the current structure of the board, our chairman's term expires at the end of 2007. We have another vice-chair whose term expires at the same time. Two of our vice-chairs' terms expire this summer, and one expires in 2008.

Just this January, we had three full-time members for the employer side and three full-time members for the union side. This is an issue you would want to use a representational panel on. For the year or so prior to this January when we got our two members, we were operating with just one full-time and one part-time. It is very difficult to put together representational panels.

We have some part-time members, but those part-time members have other careers, and it's very difficult to schedule them. So the board's being able to deal with these issues in a very quick manner, should this legislation come into effect, depends upon our having the proper people in place at the time this proposed law comes into effect.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So is it your expectation it might require more resources than you would normally have?

[John Vines]

What I'm saying is that right now we have four vice-chairs and—

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

But in terms of administrative load, you wouldn't be able to handle this perhaps now?

[John Vines]

If we had the proper complement that's in the code now, I'm sure we would be able to handle it, but at any given point in time we're often short. Given the very nature of these things, they're going to require the board to react very quickly, and you need to have the bodies in place to be able to do that.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay. Thank you.

We heard a lot from Mr. Bedard, and he had some good testimony. I wonder if Mr. Roy or Ms. Braker had any thoughts on the comments that Mr. Bedard has made so far in his submission. If you don't, that's fine.

[Cathy Braker]

I would say a few things in response to what Mr. Bedard has said, and perhaps this is broader than just the comments he has made.

One of the things the committee seems to be concerned about is this issue of essential services. I noticed earlier that there was some discussion about the fact that the language of the Canada Labour Code doesn't actually reference the term “essential services”, but refers to “maintenance of activities”. There was some reference earlier to the language that talks about “immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public”.

Obviously, the United Steelworkers represents employees across Canada, and we obviously work in all of the jurisdictions across Canada. I can tell you that the language that is reflected in section 87.4 is language that is reflected in almost all of the statutes dealing with essential services across Canada. So the B.C. statute itself talks about having intervention where a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of B.C., and the process under the B.C. code is much the same as the process under the Canada Labour Code.

In addition to that, I would note that I know of more than one board decision in which the board itself has referred to this provision as an essential services provision. So I think the board would be surprised to find that this wasn't considered to be an essential services provision. In addition to that, I can tell you that having practised and having actually dealt with these kinds of applications, it has always been the case when I have appeared on these kinds of applications that they have been dealt with as essential services applications. Certainly there is nothing in this to distinguish them from the other kinds of essential services applications that you would find in B.C. or in Quebec or in Ontario. So I did want to comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage has one more quick question.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're a very obliging chair, as far as chairs go.

I just wanted to make one comment. We are coming to the end of these hearings, and I don't know if this bill is amendable or not. Some people say it is, some say it isn't. But I would encourage anybody who has some suggested amendments to get them in to us very quickly. Give some thought to that, or else this is going to be a no-go and somebody is going to be disappointed. That may be the case anyway, and that may be for the best. But if you have any thoughts on amendments, let us know.

Thank you for taking the time today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to move now to Mr. Lessard, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank our guests for coming and giving us their opinions on Bill C-257.

I'll start by commenting on a certain number of statements by Mr. Bédard. I believe that everyone here understands that we have the delicate and important responsibility of making recommendations to the House of Commons concerning this bill. We're trying as hard as possible to grasp the essential aspects of your remarks. You represent a very influential organization, and I've tried to understand the grounds for your objection to Bill C-257. At the outset, you discussed the unwarranted politicization of labour relations. You said that opening the door to other changes would result in numerous complaints. Throughout the discussions, I didn't hear any actual examples of that. I looked elsewhere, and I believe that Mr. Vaydik gave us the best example of what we could apprehend, because he came up with something concrete.

I grew up in northern Quebec, in a region like the one Mr. Vaydik now represents and where Aboriginal communities also live. I was familiar with ice bridges which were used to transport timber and other materials. You cited that example and talked about a strike in the transportation field, trucking, for example. You said that approximately 110,500 shipments were transported over the ice bridges in a few weeks because the ice subsequently melted. When you explained that, I thought that you would surely talk about human beings at some point. But no, you told us that it was important to bring in equipment, tires and machinery to operate the mine. I thought you were surely talking about a salt mine, that there must be something. No, you were talking about diamond mines. I wondered what was so essential that we might apprehend the temporary stoppage of the mine's operations. Is lacking diamonds to decorate the jewellery of the earth's rich people something essential? I don't mean to offend you by saying that. On the contrary, I thank you because that clearly illustrates what's being sought through this bill.

If by chance there was some danger of a diamond shortage, essential goods or goods for the health of the Aboriginal communities, we could say that there shouldn't be any replacement workers, that we should see with the union—because these are sensible people—and agree on essential services. I'm thinking of the communities of Nunavut, Kuujuak, Juujjuarapik and Purvinituq. You're probably familiar with those communities, which are very isolated and, at the same time, organized, very self-sufficient, but that need essential services. I'm making these remarks to note the distinction that must be drawn between what is essential to a community and what is not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have one minute.

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

When someone tells us that that could close down the mine, I say that you don't close down the mine, you negotiate. You don't negotiate at the mine because you're dependent on the trucking.

I apologize for not having a question, but I want to tell you that, if you have any other remarks to make to us, perhaps they'll convince us of the merits of not passing this bill. However, your remarks have convinced us—they've convinced me in any case—that we should ensure that this distinction is included in the bill without altering its scope. I'm telling you that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We're now going to move to Ms. Davies for five minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Maybe I can pick up where Monsieur Lessard left off, because my earlier question to Mr. Vaydik was concerning the north.

You mentioned the diamond mine and the history there. But in the case of the recent labour dispute at the Ekati diamond mine, we're talking about a multinational corporation that has raked in huge profits, and there were issues there about replacement workers.

I just want to put this to you again. Monsieur Lessard has raised the issue of essential services, and there is a provision in this bill linked to the labour code about how they are defined. But I believe there are some very strong arguments that, in places that are very remote, where it's very hard to set up a picket line and it's easy for the employer to fly people in as replacement workers, this kind of legislation becomes very important as a preventative measure.

We've heard a lot of testimony here from witnesses who point out that most employers won't need this legislation. Hopefully, you won't have that many applications before your board. But there are instances where disputes take place and replacement workers are brought in and where that becomes the focus of the dispute, rather than settling the strike. That's one of the strong arguments for this bill.

I'd like to ask Mr. Vaydik to respond as to why this isn't actually a preventative tool, particularly given remote locations.

[Mike Vaydik]

Thank you.

Remoteness works both ways. Management is challenged by our remote locations, and unions are challenged by our remote locations, but ore bodies are where we find them. We found ones that are very valuable, as you point out, but they are also remote.

In the recent example of the Ekati strike, I know that picket lines were set up at the pickup points for transportation to those remote sites, and in several other communities than Yellowknife. Obviously there would be no point in picketing at the mine site, but the transportation links were picketed.

In fairness, the company and the union did reach an agreement over a fairly short period of time, and there were no serious incidents of picket line inappropriate behaviour.

You say there were problems. I think there are also problems from the management side. I wish I'd brought a slide of that winter road that snakes across the tundra. Literally there is nothing on either side of it for hundreds of kilometres. It's one very tenuous link that could be very easily blocked by picketers.

That's the fear, I think: that this new bill would tip the balance in favour of the union.

In looking at the essential service nature of the issue, if you don't consider provision of a job essential service—People pay us to mine those diamonds. Those jobs are heartily sought in the North's fragile economy.

There are approximately 2,500 jobs in the diamond mining business right now. Our economy is showing for the first time that the Northwest Territories may become a “have” rather than a “have not” place. It's an amazing time to be in the Northwest Territories, and it's caused by the discovery and mining of diamonds.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Let me quickly respond.

I know that in the Ekati dispute the use of replacement workers did prolong the length of the dispute. If that hadn't been allowed, I think you would have seen a much quicker settlement. And yes, there were picket lines set up.

Often we've heard testimony that confuses the issues of a strike with the issue of replacement workers. Yes, there are issues surrounding a strike that people don't like, on both sides. But we're not talking about a strike here; we're talking about banning the use of replacement workers, as a preventative measure to ensure that we can actually focus on the issues of the strike and get it resolved more quickly.

I really feel that this point is being confused; a lot of the employer groups just keep on coming back to the issue of the impact of a strike. Well, yes, we know there impacts from a strike, but there's a legal right to strike, and that's not what we're debating here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

We're now going to move to the last questioner of round two. Ms. Yelich, for five minutes please.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you.

My question is to Mr. Vaydik.

I can't convince anybody of how important this legislation would be for our farmers, because we are landlocked but have to ship our grain to the coast. How about putting it into perspective of how important it is for mining?

As you know, we have some very important mining happening in Saskatchewan. You just said it: the north is finally going to have jurisdiction, and that's what's happening in Saskatchewan. I would like you to put what's happening into perspective. We are leaders in uranium, potash, and diamonds—and I realize that's not essential in some people's minds. Can you put it into perspective?

I want to represent my province as well. There seems to be the mindset that it's only corporations and labour that are going to hurt, but our province, our jurisdiction, is going to hurt big time. I would like you to put that into perspective in mining, because it is the main sector or industry now and has taken over from farming in Saskatchewan.

[Mike Vaydik]

Unfortunately, in the north our climate doesn't lead to farming. We have mining and an increasingly promising oil and gas sector, and that's about it. We're not commercial fishermen in any great numbers, we're not foresters in any great numbers, our climate—

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

My question is, are you familiar with the mining that's happening in Saskatchewan? Or what would happen if this kind of legislation passed? What kind of impact would it have?

For example, we have a thriving uranium sector that's employing aboriginals in very good jobs. We're covering all the bases with good companies, such as Cogema and Cameco, which have very good relationships with labour. I think this kind of legislation would hurt them. It's important to express that to this committee. I'm heartened to see that one of my colleagues is here from Saskatchewan, and I want him to know how important this would be for our province to make sure that this legislation doesn't become law.

[Mike Vaydik]

We're certainly aware of the good efforts that have been made in employing aboriginal people in the mines in northern Saskatchewan. In fact when we set up our early mine training committee in the Northwest Territories, we looked to Saskatchewan as a model. As recently as a few weeks ago, northern aboriginal communities were invited to go and examine the mines in northern Saskatchewan.

Unfortunately, I can't make a direct comparison, because I'm not aware of the infrastructure that allows those mines to operate. I understand there are all-weather roads. The time constraints of a winter ice road might not be exactly the same, but we certainly recognize the importance in those remote northern communities of having a job and an economy to participate in. Those communities really didn't have much happening for them until the mining industry started.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake.

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

Mr. Pennings, I wanted to quickly get your comments on some testimony we heard with respect to this bill and its impact on the hard-earned balance that currently exists in labour negotiations.

Ms. Braker made a comment today that sounded very familiar. Back in one of the earlier meetings we had Paul Forder as a witness from the CAW. When he was asked about the fact that even managers wouldn't be allowed to work to keep their own businesses afloat under this proposed legislation, his answer was:

If the operation can't function with replacement workers, that's fine with us. We'll be able to get a settlement earlier. That's something all members should be interested in pursuing. That's the whole purpose of the legislation.

Today Ms. Braker commented in regard to the importance of this to the union. I believe she said that this will allow us to “strike effectively”. It sounds very similar.

Is it fair to suggest that if this bill is passed, it would tip the balance in favour of the union, so as to create an imbalance that would offer little choice to the employer, but to give in or shut down?