Human Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, the committee will now resume its study of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for taking the time to be here today. This is our last day of hearings on Bill C-257. We will be bringing in department officials on February 13 and going clause-by-clause on February 14 and 15.

Again, thank you to everyone for being here. Today I'm going to start with Mr. Nicholls; then move, via video conference, to our friends from Canpotex Limited; and then I'll go all the way around. I would ask each group for seven minutes. Then we'll have one seven-minute round of questions, followed by a five-minute round. The order will be Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Conservative. We'll try to get in two or three rounds of questions.

I'd like to start with Mr. Nicholls.

You're from Billiton Diamonds, I believe?

[Graham Nicholls, Vice-President, BHP Billiton Diamonds Inc.]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Welcome, sir. You have seven minutes. I'll let you know when you have one minute left. We have a bunch of witnesses today, and I'd like to keep things moving.

Mr. Nicholls, go ahead, sir.

[Graham Nicholls]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My remarks today are further to a letter of December 11 that we sent to the standing committee on behalf of BHP Billiton Diamonds.

My name is Graham Nicholls. I'm a vice-president and director of BHP Billiton Diamonds. Joining me in making the presentation today is Maurice Zoe, aboriginal site coordinator at the Ekati Diamond Mine. Nancy Deshaw, our in-house legal counsel, is available to assist in answering any specific questions.

BHP Billiton is the world's largest diversified resources company. Its main asset in Canada is the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories. It's a multi-billion dollar investment and falls under federal labour law. Ekati uses the services of between 1,500 and 2,000 people, including employees and contractors. Of the total workforce, in excess of 30% are aboriginal.

We have important socio-economic obligations to the communities in the area, and we operate under stringent licences to ensure protection of the environment.

Diamond mining provides over 40% of the GDP of the Northwest Territories, as well as a significant flow of taxes and royalties to the federal government.

Our mine is located in the tundra about 300 kilometres northeast of Yellowknife. It depends on air transport and a winter ice road for access, fuel and supplies. The mine is a very complex operation, located in a sensitive environment. It can't be shut down as a result of a labour dispute without risk and negative impacts to the local economy, to the social fabric of aboriginal communities and to the environment.

There was a strike at Ekati last year. We kept operating, using our contractors and non-union employees and the 42% of bargaining unit employees who freely chose to return to work. We did not use replacement workers; no one was brought to the mine who was not already providing services there before the strike started. A first collective agreement was reached, with 97% of the workers returning to their jobs after the strike. There was minimal disruption to other stakeholders, and our safety and environmental commitments and programs were not compromised.

The strike would have lasted much longer if legislation like Bill C-257 had been in place, because the workers at Ekati had the right to return to their jobs and demonstrate that the union did not have their support for the strike. The proposed legislation would make it illegal for these workers, many of them aboriginal, to exercise this right and express their position.

The strike was imposed by the union without an independent strike vote, which is a benefit accorded to unions under the existing code when a tentative agreement is voted on and rejected. However, the code also provides a check against unions prolonging strikes that are not supported by their members, by allowing workers the option of returning to work. This is an example of the many checks that help retain balance in the current system.

The proposed bill is narrow and one-sided, and it would drive a wedge through the careful balance that is found in the existing legislation. We think the code has worked well; let's not fix what isn't broken. Mechanisms are already in place to ensure that the use of replacement workers does not undermine the role of the union. If passed, the bill would surely result in further legislation and labour disputes in an attempt to refine it further, causing even more uncertainty and instability for all stakeholders.

The proposed legislation is even more troubling because there's no evidence that it would reduce the frequency or the length of work stoppages. Rather, based on the key observations of the October 2006 HRSDC report, which you're familiar with, it is likely that the opposite would occur.

As a global investor, we must emphasize that the draft legislation would have an adverse impact on Canada's competitiveness. A decision to substantially expand our mine would be affected, for instance, if we felt that the labour situation would be difficult to manage. If our bargaining power is diminished and unions are able to exploit our dependence on the winter road or air support, or exploit our inability to shut down operations without incurring undue risk and damage to ourselves and our stakeholders and the environment, then our appetite for investment will also be diminished.

Legislation that benefits only unions and imposes risks on business continuity and an employer's ability to comply with his contractual commitments to regulatory bodies and customers alike will inevitably have negative consequences on growth and investment in Canada.

I'd now like to hand the presentation over to Maurice Zoe, to speak about the perspectives of aboriginal people, given our experience at Ekati.

[Maurice Zoe, Aboriginal Site Coordinator, Ekati Diamond Mine, BHP Billiton Diamonds Inc.]

Hello, my name is Maurice Zoe. I have lived in the Northwest Territories all my life. I'm a Tlicho citizen of Behchoko, or Fort Rae, which is the largest aboriginal group in the north. I have been employed at Ekati as the aboriginal site coordinator and recreation officer since 1997.

I am pleased and honoured to be here to share my views on how the aboriginals and the aboriginal community were affected by the strike and the union activity that occurred at the Ekati Diamond Mine last year.

Many of our people were not looking for or expecting a strike, which they never voted for. When it did happen, negative effects rippled through the communities and many lives were affected. High unemployment in the community meant no alternative work and no income. Frustrations and challenges of not being able to work caused disruption to family and band unity. Parents, grandparents, and extended families were affected mentally and emotionally. There was evidence of increased bootlegging of alcohol and drug trafficking because people were stressed.

The chiefs and aboriginal leadership felt that they should stay neutral through the strike, but many of our people decided to return to work rather than stay at home, even though threatened with fines and blacklisting by the union. They wanted to keep their incomes and avoid the bad impacts on themselves, their families, and their community.

The union did not appear to understand how the aboriginal communities function. Labour unions are not part of our communities or our leadership. In this case, they imposed a significant burden on our people by forcing a strike, but at least we had the opportunity to make up our own minds and return to work.

The needs and beliefs of our communities take priority, not what the union wants, especially when the union put our negotiated rights to preferential employment and business contracts at the mine at risk by seeking seniority and no-contracting-out clauses.

Legislation that puts more power in the hands of the unions will take it away from our people and our leadership. We will lose promised jobs and contracts and the right to decide for ourselves what to do. We don't want to be in a situation where going back to work means breaking the law.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Zoe. It's certainly a perspective we haven't heard yet from our witnesses, so thank you very much.

We're going to move to video conference now.

I'd like to welcome Canpotex Limited. I believe we have Mr. Nieman, as well as Mr. Rudderham.

You gentlemen have seven minutes.

[Ted Nieman, Senior Vice-President, General Counsel and Secretary, Canpotex Limited]

Thank you. I'm not going to use the full seven minutes. I'm sure of that. I'm going to speak briefly and summarize my letter of December 18.

Canpotex is an export marketing company representing the three Saskatchewan potash producers, Agrium, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, and Mosaic. They are large, integrated fertilizer companies.

We're the world's largest exporter of potash. We have been averaging sales of approximately 7.5 million metric tons annually over the last several years. This, of course, results in a fairly significant benefit to the Saskatchewan economy and to the Canadian economy as a whole.

As Canpotex, the nature of our product being a bulk commodity and the nature of our company being fully only export, we are fully reliant on the transportation industry, both rail and terminal facilities, to handle our exports. We rely on it entirely with respect to rail transportation to the coast and for terminal handling at the coast. We feel any labour disruptions in the transportation industry would cause Canpotex great concern for immediate lost sales and significant long-term harm to our international reputation. Although we're not directly affected by the Canada Labour Code, in that our workers are not affected by it, obviously rail workers are and the rail industry is, as are terminal handling facilities, and they are our concern.

In 1997 we made a significant change in our operations by establishing a port facility in Portland, Oregon, outside of Canada, simply because of previous labour disruptions that affected our operations in Vancouver. They caused a loss of reputation and sales losses that are hard to recover from.

With respect to the bill itself, our comments are only this. Although we are not directly affected by it, it would have the potential to affect us adversely if there were to be a labour disruption. Obviously our shipments would stop immediately, and from there we would have little ability to ship our product. We have no ability to make any alternate shipping arrangements, and we would therefore definitely lose sales.

The potash market internationally is very competitive. Although we're a large exporter of it, we have intense competition from countries such as Russia, Belarus, Germany, and Israel, which will not be affected by similar legislation, thereby putting us at a disadvantage.

My comments are to please take a close look at this bill before introducing it, committee members, because perhaps it will have adverse effects on all shippers, not only on Canpotex.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Nieman and Mr. Rudderham, for joining us today from Saskatoon, and thank you very much for your testimony.

We're going to move to Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Morrison, from the Canadian Construction Association.

Gentlemen, you have seven minutes, please.

[Michael Atkinson, President, Canadian Construction Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Michael Atkinson. As the president of the Canadian Construction Association, I hold the chief staff position with the organization. With me is Jeff Morrison, who is the director of government relations and public affairs with the organization.

We represent the non-residential construction industry. Our members typically build everything except single-family dwellings. We have approximately 20,000 individual members right across Canada, from coast to coast to coast.

While labour relations in the construction industry are generally regulated by provincial legislation, the Canada Labour Code does have application to construction workers in the territories, and it often establishes a general precedent for provincial legislation. As a result, our industry is extremely concerned with the proposal to introduce amendments to the code that would introduce an outright ban on the use of replacement workers.

Our industry is currently enjoying unprecedented demand in many regions and sectors, especially in Alberta, in British Columbia, and in the territories. Many of these projects are related to oil and gas development and much needed public infrastructure renewal, as well as pipeline projects. This is especially true in Canada's north.

The last time amendments of this sort were seriously considered, there was a genuine attempt to consult with all interested parties, including the general public. The task force headed by Andrew Sims did not accept a complete and outright ban on replacement workers, but instead introduced a proposal that would ban the use of replacement workers where their use was intended to undermine a union's legitimate role. The majority of the members of that task force felt a complete ban would tip the balance too far to one side.

The objective of this bill is simply to deny the right of employers to continue to carry on business during a strike or lockout. In addition, it denies the ability of an employee in a bargaining unit on strike to cross the picket line and return to work in order to make a living. In addition, while the employer cannot hire replacement workers, the striking workers are free to work elsewhere. Such an unbalanced situation does not foster a climate of prudent, responsible collective bargaining. In a balanced setting, a union's right to strike must be countered to some extent by the ability of the employer to keep operating during a labour dispute.

I am going to ask Mr. Morrison to make a couple of comments. Then I'll be back with some concluding remarks.

[Jeff Morrison, Director, Environment, Canadian Construction Association]

Mr. Chair, as Mr. Nicholls said in his testimony, what problem do we want to solve by adopting these amendments? For a number of years now, the Canada Labour Code has provided for a limited restriction on the use of replacement workers, and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board has had to make no decisions on this subject. There is no indication that the prohibition against the use of replacement workers would reduce the length of strikes or violence on picket lines.

I'd like to make a comment, Mr. Chair. I hope that every member here present will denounce violence on picket lines. Violence is unacceptable under any circumstances.

British Columbia and Quebec are the only two territorial jurisdictions that prohibit the use of replacement workers. We have observed that a much larger number of strikes are triggered in Quebec than any other provinces that do not have anti-strike breaking legislation and that the duration of work stoppages in Quebec has not declined. In fact, the studies show the contrary.

Certain sectors come under federal jurisdiction because they are important to Canada as a whole. Most of those sectors are not product producers or manufacturers, for example, but rather businesses that offer essential services to all Canadians and are responsible for guaranteeing the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across the country and beyond borders.

Work stoppages in sectors regulated by the federal government inevitably have negative impacts on the economy, on our construction sector and in general.

Mr. Atkinson.

[Michael Atkinson]

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I'd like to leave this committee with two points. First, the onus of demonstrating that the current measures are insufficient to protect organized workers and that, therefore, reform is necessary must lie with those who propose such reforms and not with those who support the status quo. That is an underlying principle of any regulatory reform. And that burden of proof has not been met.

The current measures are sufficient, and there is really no factual evidence to suggest otherwise. The current measures in the code more than adequately protect organized workers and their unions by allowing the board to order replacement workers banned in situations where the employer has been found to be involved in an unfair labour practice. Surely such a significant tipping of the scale is better considered and applied on a case-by-case basis, rather than in an arbitrary and sweeping outright ban.

Former Liberal labour minister, Claudette Bradshaw, perhaps summed it up best when she said, “It seems to me that for our part as legislators it is not for us to take sides, but rather to come up with a rule of law where the needs of one side are not met at the expense of the other.”

This committee must ensure that the law continues to provide a fair and balanced approach.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Morrison.

We are now going to move to CN, or Canadian National. I believe we have Mr. Finn here today. You have seven minutes, sir.

[Sean Finn, Senior Vice-President, Public Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Canadian National]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sean Finn. I'm the senior vice-president and chief legal officer at CN.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure for us to be here today and to have the opportunity to give you our comments on Bill C-257.

We at CN take Bill C-257 very seriously and view it with great concern. CN has approximately 15,000 unionized employees across Canada. These employees belong to seven unions in 21 certified bargaining units and are covered by 30 collective agreements.

There are a number reasons why certain sectors are federally regulated. One is that we are companies with broad enough operations and important economic impacts that we significantly impact the Canadian economy.

CN, as you know, is a freight railway. We serve eight provinces as well as the mid-United States. In Canada, CN serves the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Montreal, and Halifax. In the case of Halifax and Prince Rupert, we are the only railway servicing those ports. The majority of VIA Rail Canada's trains travel on CN tracks, as well as much of the commuter traffic of GO Transit in Toronto and the Agence métropolitaine de transport in Montreal.

Since 1971 CN and its unions have been involved in four strikes. Strikes in 1974, 1986, and 1995 all required back-to-work legislation by the federal government. This was done because Parliament deemed it necessary to ensure that the Canadian economy did not suffer serious damage, and also to ensure that CN's customers did not have to shut down plants and lay off workers, with substantial impact to their businesses.

In 2004 CN faced a month-long strike by the CAW. CN continued to operate during the work stoppage, exercising our rights under the existing labour legislation, using managers—who had to be qualified and skilled—as well as retirees to continue to operate the railway and service our customers. The strike was generally peaceful, and ultimately a settlement was reached through the collective bargaining process and ratified by a large majority without government intervention. I'm very pleased to note that just last week the same CAW employees, without a work stoppage, ratified a new four-year agreement.

If this legislation were passed, with its strict limit on the tasks management personnel can perform and taking away our ability to bring back retired managers to help run the railway, it would not be possible for us to maintain operations through a strike.

Under current labour legislation, bargaining representation is system-wide. With the changes suggested in this bill, labour would have the power to disrupt company operations nationwide. Companies would not have the resources to deploy to maintain the critical services necessary to maintain nationwide services essential to the general welfare of Canadian citizens. We fear this would mean a return to a system where any nationwide railway work stoppage would inevitably require government intervention. This is not the way to build trust between management and the union or to improve labour relations.

I'd like to speak a few minutes about the collateral damage that would take place in the event of even a short railway strike.

First, the commuter rail service in Toronto and Montreal would quickly grind to a halt, leading to traffic jams and great inconvenience for millions of people. In some cases, depending on which union is striking, VIA Rail service could largely stop.

I must remind you that while it is possible to apply to have workers designated as essential, the grounds are very narrow, and the chance of success, unless the unions agree, is minimal. Economic consequences are not considered.

Canadian railways are a significant driver of the economy. The Canadian economy is heavily dependent on trade. The majority of our bulk products and many of our manufactured goods are moved to export position by rail, as referred to by Canpotex. Grain, forest products, coal, sulphur, fertilizer, metals and minerals, and many other bulk commodities rely almost exclusively on rail to get to destinations in the United States or to export position at Canadian ports. The many companies relying on just-in-time delivery parts would see their production lines slow and eventually stop. Companies would incur increased storage costs and in some cases would have serious problems finding places to store their production. Canadian ports would face serious backlogs on incoming containers, and ships waiting for out-going products would sit in port running up large demurrage bills. Canadian farmers and other primary producers would suffer, as would Canada's international reputation.

These would not be short-term or one-time issues, as the reliability of Canadian suppliers to meet their commitments would be drawn into question. In the past, strikes at west coast ports have caused traffic to move to U.S. ports, and some of that traffic never comes back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Finn, I've been notified by the translator to have you slow down a little so that they can keep up.

Thank you.

[Sean Finn]

Sure. I can do it in French, if you want me to.

I apologize to the interpreter.

Anyone who has been to China and met the Chinese exporters or shipping companies can tell you that one of the first questions asked to any visiting Canadian delegation pitching for an increase in Asia's North American trade through Canada is, what about your labour situation? This may refer to the ports, the truckers, or the railways, but to be sure, every work stoppage that leads to delays in moving our customers' goods to market hurts our competitive position and hurts Canada's competitive position.

The government sees great promise in the Pacific gateway initiative. There is talk in Atlantic Canada of an Atlantic gateway initiative. We at CN see great promise as well, but we do not underestimate how quickly our competitive advantages can be lost because of an uncertain labour environment. We at CN are extremely excited by the potential of the new container port that will open this fall in Prince Rupert.

Traditionally, labour legislation has been drafted carefully after lengthy consultation with both labour and management. Existing federal legislation reflects years of discussion and consideration. In the end, it represents a compromise approach, under which neither side gets everything it wants. To arbitrarily change one aspect of the Canada Labour Code destroys that careful balance and has the potential to significantly damage labour relations in the companies covered by the act.

There are many changes we'd like to see made to the current law, and I am sure the unions also have a long list. It is indeed time to consider or reconsider the current legislation, and do it in the right way. Appoint a panel of experts to look at the law in its entirety and bring forward a set of recommendations reflecting the concerns of all parties based on facts and experience.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, CN believes that Bill C-257 is seriously flawed and cannot be sufficiently improved through amendment, and urges the members of the committee to vote against the bill in its entirety.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Finn, for being here.

We are now going to move to our last witnesses for today. We have Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Henderson from the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association.

Welcome, gentlemen. You have seven minutes.

[David Turnbull, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Courier and Logistics Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting us to appear here today.

My name is David Turnbull. I'm the president of the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association. I'm accompanied by Bill Henderson, senior vice-president of operations with Purolator Courier. On behalf of the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association, I would like to provide the committee with our significant concerns regarding Bill C-257.

Canada's courier industry provides delivery of time-sensitive packages, freight, and documents to small, medium, and large businesses, government institutions, public health facilities, and individuals. The courier industry is a vital part of the Canadian economy, with estimated revenues of approximately $5.5 billion, and it is responsible for employing some 46,800 people.

Today, Canada's manufacturing and retail industries depend on just-in-time delivery for essential replacement parts and inventory. Interruptions to these just-in-time deliveries can cause slowdowns or even closure of production lines, impacting the Canadian economy. The automotive industry, among others, transfers component parts between manufacturing facilities for assembly. Many of the smaller components cross and sometimes re-cross the Canadian border using courier company services.

Distribution of vital medical supplies and diagnostic material are transported by our couriers every day. For example, Canadian Blood Services collects whole blood from more than 14,200 blood donor clinics and ships blood, plasma, and other blood products to nearly 750 hospitals across Canada using couriers to transport. In times of emergency, critical supplies are delivered through the courier industry's national and international facilities.

Let me speak to the implications of Bill C-257 for the courier industry. Bill C-257 would seriously jeopardize the courier industry's ability to deliver essential packages and freight in the event of a strike or lockout. It proposes a fundamental change in the balance between the interests of organized labour and business and tilts heavily towards labour. The proposed bill would not allow businesses to continue operations, while at the same time, it would allow striking workers to seek employment outside the workplace. How can you consider that to be balanced?

No credible evidence exists to suggest that any problems exist in the present Canada Labour Code with respect to replacement workers. Numerous presentations to this committee have quoted statistics produced by Human Resources and Social Development Canada that refute the premise of Bill C-257. The number of work stoppages per 10,000 employees in the province of Quebec is significantly higher than in comparable federally regulated business operations, despite the fact that Quebec has a provincial restriction on replacement workers and the federal code has no such restriction.

The current federal legislation provides a fine balance between the interests of business and labour. It was arrived at after extensive consultation and input. No such extensive consultation led to the creation of Bill C-257.

The Canadian Courier and Logistics Association believes that enactment into law of Bill C-257 would reduce the competitiveness of Canadian businesses. It would make Canada less attractive for foreign direct investment, and SMEs would consider moving to the U.S. or to overseas locations following any national labour disruption.

It is important to note that operations of both unionized and non-unionized companies would be affected by strikes in other sectors. The domino effect from the closure of such facilities as airports due to safety certificates being revoked could ripple through the whole of the Canadian economy. As well as these economic considerations, a significant risk to Canadians' health would be posed by the disruption of courier services for vital medical deliveries.

In consideration of the above, the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association urges the committee to reject this legislation.

In summary, Bill C-257 would impact the Canadian public and industry as follows: It would change the existing balance in part I of the Canada Labour Code without a full consultation. It would lead to longer, more frequent work stoppages. It would hurt workers financially, drawn into disputes unrelated to the employer they work for. It would prevent the delivery of essential parts and inventory in the event of strike or lockout; and, therefore, would undermine the viability of many small and medium-sized businesses, putting jobs at risk. It would endanger investment and, indeed, the Canadian economy at large. It would prevent couriers from maintaining the delivery of essential services to Canadians. It would adversely impact public health and safety and would inevitably force Parliament to pass back-to-work legislation in strike situations.

So in summary, the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association urge you not to proceed with this legislation.

I don't know if the clerk has handed out my handout. I've detailed in great detail some of the medical supplies that are transported by our couriers, and some of the auto parts, to give you a sense of this, and Mr. Henderson would be pleased to speak to some of the medical issues that are delivered. I urge you to look through this package and consider the broad implications for the whole of Canada. Not just a single industry, but every single Canadian can be impacted negatively if this bill goes through.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Henderson, for being here today.

I have a couple of points of reference for housekeeping.

Mr. Henderson needs to leave by 4:30, and likewise our teleconferencers are only here until 4:30, so I want to let you know that we will have one full round for the teleconference, as well as Mr. Henderson, should you wish to address those questions.

The second thing I want to point out is that people have been asking for empirical evidence all along on whether this would affect investment in Canada. I would suggest that we have Mr. Nicholls here at the table, and you may want to talk to him about that empirical evidence on whether they would invest here in Canada or not. You actually have someone at the table today who can address that.

We're doing to start with Mr. Silva, for seven minutes, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for taking their time to be here. I appreciate their comments and their concerns. Some of the witnesses who are here before us I had an opportunity to meet in my office today, like Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Morrison. Again, I appreciate your comments.

CN is the organization that I'd like to pose some of my questions to, because they were just in the midst of a possible strike and so they have maybe some more current information that could help us with what's happening at the very moment.

You have 15,000 unionized employees in Canada, according to your statements. How do you qualify your employees? Are they low-skilled, medium-skilled, or highly skilled workers?

[Sean Finn]

First of all, I wouldn't want to comment on the current negotiations. They're ongoing, as we speak. I want to make sure that this afternoon I do not in any way comment on the fact that CN and the UTU are in the context of negotiations. We'll do anything we can to avoid a railway strike on both sides by negotiating in good faith to come to an agreement. That's my first comment.

Secondly, railways workers have been around for 100 years, but they are highly skilled in the areas of their expertise. For example, I said to you that during the CAW strike we had carmen and heavy mechanics who were on strike. Carmen will fix cars on our main line, and heavy mechanics will repair locomotives. In both cases, they're highly skilled labourers. Today, locomotives are somewhat complex equipment.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Do you just hire them off the street, or do you have to train them for a long time?

[Sean Finn]

They have to be trained. In the case of carmen, they have to be trained to fix a railcar in a safe and prudent fashion.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

How much time do you need to train them?

[Sean Finn]

Well, carmen are trained to make sure, when they look at cars coming in from foreign railways or their own railways, that they fit the standards. Railway cars are somewhat complex. It's the same with locomotives. These people receive training within the railway itself.

When we hire people during a strike, be it managers or retirees, we take people from the same trades to do the same work, obviously, because we cannot train people off the street. It's not a question of bringing in someone off the street to become a carman or a train master or a unionized employee. In this area, we use—

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It's fair to say that you would need quite some time to train these people adequately to operate the train.