Status of Women Committee on April 12th, 2010

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

My father worked as a longshoreman at the port of Montreal when he came back from the war. It was one of his first jobs, because it was easy to find work there at the time. The system was much the same: he had to go to the docks and if there was work for him, he would be hired. If there was no work, he would come home. That was in 1945. A long time ago.

I am wondering whether there are ports in other parts of Canada where things are different. Is this how things work in all ports? Did you experiment it in other places? Did people from the union and the employers hold discussions to try to come to an agreement that would facilitate things?

If people were to use the Internet, I would be afraid that there might be discrimination because you can see a person's name. Perhaps you could do this by phone. If the union were to call people individually, rather than ask them to go somewhere, it might be preferable. I think that is what is being done currently in Montreal. Have you tried to work differently and to use other methods of facilitating the involvement of women and men? Generally, when you make things easier for women, it makes things easier for men as well.

[Greg Vurdela]

This is the base reason for us filing the human rights complaint that we did file. We have tried to bring the union along with several proposals that have been tabled and would address the long-standing issues of recruitment, transparency of access to training, and basically the ability to secure employment without having to physically attend at the dispatch. This discriminates against those people who have family status issues--primarily primary caregivers.

Let's put a couple of things to rest, if we may. The official proposal the BCMEA tabled with ILWU, and in fact the basis of its human rights complaint, does not include some 200 women being immediately recruited and thrust into the union. We all understand, to Mr. Dufresne's point, what a disaster that would be. That's simply not the case. We have never advocated that officially. We have never put that in a proposal. It's not in our human rights complaint. It is simply not part of the piece.

What we're talking about is this initial recruitment piece where we say to the union, “We cannot go off your lists”. In fact, they are illegal. They are full of nepotism. They are full of relatives. We can't discriminate against relatives and we can't discriminate for relatives. We simply can't use these lists.

What we're saying to the union... The example that Mr. Dufresne decided to cite is the one place where we have worked together. We have an ad in the paper, we have people apply, and we simply pick the best people. What we are suggesting in order to bring forth a critical mass of women, to begin to change the culture Ms. Marynuik is speaking about, is that we need to recruit, for the time being, on a fifty-fifty basis. If in fact... Our statistics show that if men and women start in the process on an equal basis, as we're suggesting, they do equally well. There is no issue once women get into the workforce, once they are appropriately trained, and once they have the ability to get work. This is where we have to make the changes.

We have tried on a repeated basis to talk to the ILWU. We have a trail of meetings and suggestions and proposals that have gone on and on. What we get from the ILWU is ongoing intransigence: “why can't we do things the old way?” and “why can't we just do what Mr. Ready has suggested?”

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Vurdela.

If I understand correctly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, Nicole, but next time around... Sorry about that.

For the Conservatives, Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly as I listen, out of all the witnesses who have come forward from a whole host of non-traditional occupations for women, I think that perhaps the story we're hearing is mostly in the history books, and it's very difficult to hear this kind of history in terms of what's happening.

I have a couple of quick questions. Out of the 5,500 workers that arrive at work, do they come, do they go...? How many of those are women?

[Greg Vurdela]

We have the statistics for you.

Ms. Marynuik, if you would.

[Eleanor Marynuik]

Sure. As casual workers, we have a total of 255 women who represent 5.4%, and we have 37 union members who represent a total of 1%.

[Greg Vurdela]

If I may add to that, the significance of these statistics is that the way the union is structured only full union members have the vote and representation in their terms and conditions of employment, which is why the casual statistics cited are dreadful.

But worse than that are the statistics cited within the union ranks, because it is this 1% that is vying for control of terms and conditions, which they don't have, and that is why you find, from an election perspective, that there are no women in the ILWU executives.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

So you--

[Eleanor Marynuik]

Sorry, but I may just add this? Also, there is Local 514 of the ILWU, which represents foremen. That is the next level of supervision. There are 435 foremen within ILWU Local 514 and one woman is a foreman.

[Tom Dufresne]

Could I address that, Madam McLeod?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Go ahead.

[Tom Dufresne]

It's a good thing that Ms. Marynuik is bringing up the 435 supervisory positions. Out of all the supervisory positions on the west coast of Canada, only one is held by a woman. The foremen are hired directly by the companies. The union has no input into the hiring for these positions. That hiring practice is one hundred per cent employer dominated. We're trying to put an end to it in this round of bargaining and to say that we want to move people up from the workforce into these supervisory positions.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Presumably if your workforce needs someone with experience to be a foreman, and--

[Eleanor Marynuik]

Sorry, but if I may correct Mr. Dufresne--

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Sorry, but you know what? I would prefer that you give a written correction.

[Eleanor Marynuik]

Okay.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I don't know that this is the forum to be solving what seem to be long-standing concerns and issues.

[Eleanor Marynuik]

Sure.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I guess you represent 66 companies. Could you talk about international examples? Are there things happening in other places? You talked about best practices you've become aware of through your representation. Are there any successes you can share, as opposed to the very discouraging stories?

[Greg Vurdela]

Well, the success appears to be almost legislative in nature, if I could coin it in those terms. On the U.S. west coast, the ILWU had the same issues that we now confront. The way they dealt with that was through their gender equity legislation, which essentially forced on the ILWU an appropriate percentage and a critical mass of women who would be able to then change the terms and conditions under which they work, and the atmosphere, essentially, under which they work. That, unfortunately and most unhappily, that is what we end up resorting to in these cases, which is again why the association has filed the human rights complaint that it has.

We need to put this issue before a body with the authority and knowledge to give us a solution, because clearly, as you're pointing out to us, the parties seem unable to do that on their own. It is a well-entrenched issue and it needs to change.

[Susan O'Donnell]

May I answer that?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Sure.

[Susan O'Donnell]

I think that's the one weakness of Vince Ready's report. He went to San Francisco, so what he was looking at was the affirmative action program of the United States of America. What he was looking at was a suit under that program, where a judicial order happened to order this number of women and the way it should go about, right? In the United States, affirmative action sets quotas of women and minorities and sets a certain timeframe when they must bring those people in. They have no bona fide occupational requirements as their bottom line of ability and no training requirements as their top line of ability; it's entirely different human rights law.

In Canada what we have is the Employment Equity Act. It says that we have to reach out to women and minorities, identify and remove barriers, and work from that perspective, which is what we've been talking about as a union all this time. But we can't turn around and introduce affirmative action measures when they're not the law in our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have about another minute and a half.