Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 25 - Evidence - April 17 Meeting
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 17, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-66, to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 2:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Jean B. Forest (Acting Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Honourable senators, our first witnesses this afternoon are from Prairie Pools Incorporated. We are pleased to have you with us today. Please proceed.
Mr. Ken Edie, Vice-Chairman, Prairie Pools Incorporated:Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about Bill C-66. This legislation has been a long time coming and is welcome by the grain industry as a step forward in the field of labour relations.
The views presented in this submission by PPI are those of western Canada's largest farmer-owned cooperatives. Together, Alberta Wheat Pool, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and Manitoba Pool Elevators have over 100,000 farmer owner-members and employ well over 5,000 Canadians. The annual gross revenue of the Pools totals more than $5 billion. As cooperatives, the Pools ensure that their member-owners benefit from their success. Since the beginning, the Pools have returned close to $2 billion to their farmer member-owners.
The Pools handle well over half the grains, oilseeds, and special crops delivered to the country elevator system. They operate more than 800 country elevators across the prairies and in north-eastern British Columbia. Individually and in partnership, the Pools operate grain terminal elevators at all Canada's export ports. The Pools work together as Prairie Pools Incorporated on national and international issues of mutual concern.
Approximately 30 million tonnes of grains and oilseeds, valued at more than $5 billion, are exported annually from the Canadian prairies to more than 60 countries around the world. Canada currently holds 21 per cent of world exports of wheat, half the world durum exports, 20 per cent of the world barley exports, and leads the world in canola exports. Therefore, we are significant contributors to the national revenues of Canada.
China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines have become our major customers. These countries pay cash for grain and oilseeds and are willing to pay premiums for Canadian product. However, in exchange, they demand timely delivery of product and will quickly turn to other suppliers if they cannot achieve that from Canada.
Everyone in business today wants just-in-time inventory so that they are not required to carry product. This is understandable from a user's point of view. If there is any breakdown in the chain, we have problems. During a recent trade mission to China, Canada's Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food spent much of his time reassuring our major customers that grain would continue to move.
In order to both maintain and increase competitiveness, significant activities are being undertaken by prairie farmers and by handling companies to reduce costs. Our competitors are also reducing costs and working to improve the quality and consistency of their products. Canada cannot fall behind. Our reputation as a reliable supplier must be improved.
PPI welcomes the new labour relations environment which will be created by Bill C-66. We firmly believe in collective bargaining and are confident that the streamlined process provided in the bill will strengthen the collective bargaining environment and result in fewer work stoppages.
The Pools welcome the provisions of clause 87.7 of Bill C-66 which prevent labour disputes, other than those between grain employers and employees, from stopping the flow of grain in the port. The flow of grain in the Port of Vancouver was stopped once in the last decade by a dispute in the grain industry. It has been stopped four times by disputes in the longshore. Clause 87.7 is essential to ensuring that grain is no longer held hostage to disputes outside the grain industry. PPI not only supports clause 87.7 but believes that it is essential in order to begin to repair Canada's damaged reputation in the international grain marketplace.
Canadian prairie producers are among the most efficient in the world. They produce a consistently high, quality product for which international customers are prepared to pay a premium. However, despite the quality of our product, and despite the efforts of our industry to increase its efficiency in meeting market demand, Canada's reputation as a supplier has deteriorated. Much of the damage to our reputation has been done by the disruption of the flow of grain by labour disputes.
Prairie Pools Incorporated believes in collective bargaining and welcomes the provisions of Bill C-66 which will create a better labour relations environment. It is our hope that the streamlined process will result in more settlements and fewer work stoppages. Most important, PPI supports clause 87.7 of the bill preventing disputes in industries other than grain from stopping the flow of grain from ports.
We urge the committee to recognize the benefits of this provision to the grain industry and to Canada's reputation on the international market by endorsing it in your report to the Senate.
It has been said that Canada suffers from too much geography and not enough people. I use that phrase to describe the Canadian, grain-growing area in western Canada, where the major amount of grain is grown. Ontario and Quebec have significant amounts also, but they are more on less on salt water. The prairie region is the longest distance to salt water and, therefore, needs every segment of the industry working in partnership and collaboratively to ensure that we have a system which is efficient and effective in ensuring we maintain our international reputation for delivery and, of course, to deliver our high-quality premium product.
Senator Perrault: My ancestors were prairie homesteaders, and they are still farming wheat in southern Saskatchewan. How will the crop be this year with all that water? Are you worried about crop volumes?
Mr. Edie: By and large, looking back in history, when the prairies as a whole have above-average rainfall, they have above-average crop. That does not hold true for all districts, particularly as you would be aware of the flooding potential in the Red River Valley. That puts them at risk, and approximately 2.5 per cent of the grain area will possibly be flooded. The Red River Valley produces about 3.5 per cent of Canadian grain. However, particularly in the large grain growing areas in Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and south-western Manitoba, we have not lost a crop in April yet.
Senator Perrault: That is good.
Do you sense that there is a possibility of competition with American shippers for grain handling? We want to keep as many jobs in Canada as possible, but I hear reports about the possibility of grain being shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans and then to the various markets. Is this a serious threat, or is that substance?
Mr. Edie: Certainly, it is a threat. It becomes more serious as our costs escalate, whether it is on the West Coast or the lower St. Lawrence.
The St. Lawrence Seaway is more costly than the Mississippi alternative by 28 cents a tonne during the first week of September. That can vary because of barge rates on the Mississippi.
Canadian Wheat Board has shipped a small amount of grain down the Mississippi.
Senator Perrault: I resent a Canadian board choosing an American shipper.
Mr. Edie: As prairie farmers, we also resent it. However, it was cost effective.
Senator Perrault: Was it because of disputes on the coast?
Mr. Edie: It was because of high costs of the seaway.
Ms Patty Townsend, Manager, Communications and Public Affairs, Prairie Pools Inc.: Another factor was the difficulty the railways seemed to be having moving product at that time.
Senator Perrault: It was a shortage of cars or something.
Mr. Edie: That is another discussion. We are supporting the Canadian Wheat Board in their suggestion that the railways have not been as efficient as they could have been. However, approximately three years ago, Canadian barley did go through Seattle because of a work stoppage.
With these kinds of pressures building up, the Alberta Pool, with General Mills in the United States, has built and is operating a grain elevator in the U.S.
The Saskatchewan Pool has just announced yesterday that they will utilize an elevator in conjunction with General Mills at Northgate, which is the eastern portion of the Saskatchewan-Montana border.
These types of things can happen. We do not want that to be the case, but we must respond to the cost structures in place. We need some alternatives to ensure that we can continue to access markets.
Senator Perrault: Some American agriculturists claim that the Canadian grain producers are being unfairly subsidized. They are in a rugged free enterprise south of the border. However, are there not American dollars involved in shipping grain down the Mississippi?
Mr. Edie: Certainly. The Army Corps of Engineers, depending upon whose figures you use, is a $2 to $3 tonne subsidy. It is allowable under the World Trade Organization rules because it is generally available to all freight.
If you remember, the subsidy portion of our Western Grain Transportation Act was only relevant to grain; therefore, it came under GATT scrutiny. The government chose to do away with it in its entirety. The government did not have to meet GATT, but they did in order to facilitate deficit reduction.
The amount of subsidy in Canadian grains and oilseeds now is minimal. There is the NISA program. You could consider the government ownership of railcars as a subsidy. That would not be more than the American Mississippi. The other aspect we hope will get through the house is interest-free cash advances, which are relatively small.
Last Friday, at the Canadian Grains Council meeting, a member of the Grain Trades Council in the United States outlined the subsidies still available for U.S. farmers, and they are quite attractive. Although they removed most of them from production, it is an acreage base, and it is guaranteed over the next five or six years. Billions of dollars will be flowing into there, as well as an element of a per-bushel subsidy.
People say Canadian grain is subsidized, but they have not really looked into the situation because it is minimal compared to the U.S.
Senator Perrault: It is a good industry.
Senator Cogger: You state in your brief that, over the last decade, the flow of grain to export position has been stopped 16 times. Over the same decade, have prairie pools experienced any work stoppages, labour problems, strikes, or lock-outs?
Ms Townsend: Since 1982, the grain industry itself at terminal port has had two strikes. The balance of the 16 were in the railways with the Public Service Alliance -- the longshoremen, the grain inspectors, and that sort of thing.
Senator Cogger: How many work stoppages have you had in your own industry?
Ms Townsend: We have had two.
Senator Cogger: How long did they last?
Ms Townsend: The one in 1985 at the West Coast lasted 42 days. The one in 1991 on the West Coast lasted for six days.
Senator Cogger: The committee can easily understand why your industry would support the bill, especially clause 87.7. It is a provision which would make other users of the port facilities envious.
The committee has heard, for instance, from the chemical industry. Were you here yesterday?
Mr. Edie: No.
Senator Cogger: Those people have nothing against the grain industry. They would love to be brought into clause 87.7. On the other hand, they feel that the special status that the grain industry would receive would weaken their position. The logic of it appears to be clear. They feel that governments have intervened to halt work stoppages and to legislate workers back to work because of the grain problem. If we protect the grain industry under clause 87.7, then the pressure will be greatly decreased for governments to move in to try to force a settlement or to get people back to work, et cetera. They feel they will be rather vulnerable.
How do you react to that? Do you see their logic? Do you see a problem with their point of view?
Mr. Edie: We must look at what has happened in the past. Only once in the last 10 years has grain been interrupted in a dispute between the grain workers and terminal elevator operators. In the meantime, it has been interrupted four times as a result of disputes between the longshoremen and the B.C. Maritime Employers Association. We are not part of the B.C. association.
Senator Cogger: Neither is the chemical industry.
Mr. Edie: I am not familiar with their situation.
Senator Cogger: In your own report, you state that history shows that government feels pressure to step in quickly to legislate workers back to work when grain is affected. By the same logic, if grain is no longer affected, one must assume that governments will not step in.
Ms Townsend: The question then is: Do we want a collective bargaining process whereby we bargain in good faith and try to reach agreement, as we are doing in the grain industry -- our last agreement took four years to reach and used every possible tool available under the labour code -- or do you want to always rely on legislation and hope that you will be legislated back to work?
We cannot speak for the other bulk shippers, but it also seems -- as was recognized by the industrial commission of inquiry -- that they are using grain as their ace in the hole to ensure that they will always get back-to-work legislation. They shut us down. It takes our system days and days to recover so that farmers can again deliver to elevators which are plugged up because of work stoppages. We can pay the demurrage and everything else. They are using our grain as a hostage so that they will get that back-to-work legislation. We do not want that to happen. Japan, China, and our other major customers in Asia say to us, "You cannot deliver our product when we want it."
Senator Cogger: I hear you. However, with all due respect, the same argument is made in the chemical industry. A representative from Dow Chemical was sitting in your chair saying , "If I cannot deliver the goods -- that is, if I cannot establish a reputation as a reliable supplier -- my customer in the Pacific or in Asia will turn to the U.S., Germany, or another market."
I think the problem is the same all over. Essentially, if the longshoremen walk out in the absence of clause 87.7, you are in big trouble, as is the chemical industry, the potash shippers, the exporters of coal, and so on. However, in your case, we are to say, "Keep on processing their goods."
Ms Townsend: I hate to keep using the word "hostage", but we know that if grain shipping is stopped, there is back-to-work legislation. There would not likely be back-to-work legislation if you stopped the flow of chemicals. That is the root of the problem. They know they will get back-to-work legislation, so they do not negotiate collectively, and they have not tried that yet.
In the four disputes that the longshore had over the last decade, three were resolved by legislation.
Senator Cogger: Do not get me wrong. I am not arguing in favour of taking away the added protections given to the grain industry. I am simply trying to think in general terms. This big, powerful lobby, if I can call it that, of the grain industry strikes its own deal, and the other guys feel they will be left alone to suffer dire consequences.
Ms Townsend: No, they are left to bargain collectively.
Senator Cogger: In cases of work stoppage action, they have nothing to do.
Ms Townsend: Once they are forced to bargain -- that is, when they do not have the legislation to fall back on -- they will find that collective bargaining works quite well.
Senator Cogger: I hope you are right. I am not a shareholder in the chemicals industry or anything, but it is a big gamble.
Essentially, as far as that is concerned, Bill C-66 will bring in a totally new modus operandi. The government will be required to monitor it and hope that their gamble pays off and everything works fine. You may well be right.
Mr. Edie: We have no part of that process. We have no part of the BC Maritime Employers Association. We are certified under the West Coast Terminals Association. Those are the rules of the game, and we must deal with them.
Senator Cogger: I understand, but the other guys are in the same position.
The government will have to hope that the intent they are pursuing is fully met. Thank you for shedding some light on the matter.
Senator Maheu: I am concerned about the attitude I see out there. In the past, longshoremen just sat there and waited. A $15 billion industry, of which 55 per cent of the output is destined to outside markets, is facing loss of the usage of a product if it is delayed too long. Your reaction seems to be a bit strange. Why you and not them? It does not seem to matter that the longshoremen do exactly the same thing to them as they are doing to you. I am curious as to why you feel that way.
Mr. Edie: As I said, we have no part in the longshoreman's settlement. We feel that the situation would be made better over the long-term if grain was not used as a hostage or an ace in the hole. The bargaining process does not go forward because they know that, at the end, they will be legislated back to work.
Senator Maheu: Have you not also been legislated back to work?
Mr. Edie: As was pointed out, when we have an opportunity to deal with it, we have good success. We have seen some back-to-work legislation which was not easy to accept because of in the terms dictated through the legislation.
Ms Townsend: Our last round of negotiations and our last contract, which was not reached too long ago, will be in place until the year 2000. It took four years to arrive at that contract. We went through the collective bargaining process. We went through mediation and conciliation and used the collective bargaining process to the hilt. At any time, we could have asked the minister or the conciliator to report. We also could have gone to strike or lock-out and been legislated back to work. We chose not to do that because we wanted to have a collective bargaining agreement.
Mr. Edie: All three Pools in our country facilities are unionized. There has only been one strike, which was about three years ago in Sask. Pool and went on for approximately 20 days. We are used to that particular method of settling outstanding issues and have been quite successful at it.
If I could use an example, when we were legislated back to work, there was a 6, 6, and 5 three-year term. For some reason, the government chose to do that. It was legislated, so we had to accept it. We had hoped that we would get continuous operation. When we tried it and did not, it was grieved. We lost at arbitration. We wonder about just automatically going to government intervention. It is not always successful.
If people know about it, they shrug their shoulders and wait for something to happen, and then complain like I am complaining now.
Senator Beaudoin: Grain has been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution. Everything connected directly, or perhaps indirectly, to grain comes under our jurisdiction. We have no problem with whether we are competent but rather on the policy in the field of the Canada Labour Code.
It is a new system, but I do not have any particular comments on it. Like my colleague, I hope they succeed.
Mr. Edie: Grain has been declared for the general advantage of Canada. It is in the Canada Grain Act, and it has been there since 1912. In effect, the Canada Grain Act states that, as elevators, we accept the grain in the order it is presented to us. In our terminals, we do not control the grain; it can come in from another terminal. We cannot say, "We will not take your grain or your grain." If you are running a store, you are not required to deal with anyone, but we must deal with people.
That environment has been set up, and it has worked well.
Senator Beaudoin: You do not have any problem with what I would call the globality of this. It is not only a question of legislation; it is a question of how to succeed. Do you have any problem with the way labour relations are conducted, or are you always successful?
Ms Townsend: We are not always successful; but we think our record is getting better. Our experience as a result of our last agreement on the West Coast taught us that we would like to have a streamlined process rather than the mediation and conciliation processes currently in the code. We look forward to dealing with that after our contracts expire again.
We always go into it hoping we can achieve agreements collectively because the grain industry does not like to rely on legislation.
Mr. Edie: I am with the Manitoba Pool, although right now I am representing Prairie Pools. Through labour negotiation, we made some fundamental changes in the work rules. There was a seniority clause which we felt was difficult for us to manage. The unions wanted a bumping clause which would have been very detrimental to us. We made a compromise. We have been under that regime for 18 months now, and it is working quite well. It took a year and a half to get there, but we did it. Our staff and unions understood why we needed to do what we needed to do, and we understood their reasons for wanting what they wanted.
The grain industry is going through tremendous change. There have been more changes in the last three years than there have been in the last 30, and there will be more changes in the next three than there were in the last three. We need the ability to manage our affairs and work with our staff for the benefit of both staff and our farmer members, because they are important to each other.
The Acting Chair: Does grain still go through the Port of Churchill?
Mr. Edie: Churchill had a higher than average handle this year. The amount of grain has increased this year over the last several years. The rail line has been reorganized. The terminal owners on the tracks from the U.S. want to buy the line. The Port of Churchill, through port divestiture, will no longer belong to Harbours Canada. We have some concerns about that, however, at the moment, there has been more grain than in the past.
Provided that it can work commercially, Omnitrack says they can operate at a lower cost than CN Rail could. We have some concerns about the investment of money in Churchill. We want to ensure that it is to the benefit of all the prairie grain growers. If the Port of Churchill is to be kept open because of national or provincial concerns, then that must be considered. Under the WGGA, the grain growers of Western Canada were, in effect, subsidizing the rail line to Churchill through the averaging of rates.
The Acting Chair: Have we had any labour trouble so far at the terminal at Prince Rupert?
Mr. Edie: Not recently. Shortly after it opened, there was a question of jurisdiction, if you will; that is, whether a particular foreman is foreman of the union or is in management. That was settled, and, in the last two or three years, there have been no problems.
Senator Perrault: You mentioned fairness. A number of people testified before the committee and said it is not fair to discriminate in favour of the grain industry. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce suggested that it has great difficulty in accepting the premise that, during a strike at a port, grain should be given preferential treatment over all other commodities. They went on to state that the negative impact of any port dispute is not limited to grain, nor is its economic impact greater than the implications of port shutdown on the exporters and importers of other commodities, including forest products, coal, sulphur, potash, and petrochemicals.
We have heard many other submissions along those lines. Do you feel you have been singled out for special treatment? If so, do you think there is justification for it?
Mr. Edie: I do not know if it is special treatment. We are suggesting that we want to manage what we can manage. We do not want to be impacted by things with regard to which we have no input.
Senator Perrault: Wheat is a perishable commodity.
Mr. Edie: Yes, it is. First, it can deteriorate in value. Second, in the marketing of food, yesterday's meals are eaten yesterday, and what is lost is lost. The third point is reliability of supply, which can have a lingering effect in people's minds as to suitability. Japan has said that they have something like five days' supply of food on their islands. Therefore, they need this just-in-time inventory, and they are willing to pay for it.
Senator Perrault: Is there an increasing use of wheat as opposed to other grains in Japan, such as rice and so on? Are we improving market share?
Mr. Edie: Yes. Japan has grown rice for years.
Senator Perrault: It is fundamental.
Mr. Edie: We know that wheat consumption in China, for example, is going up.
If people can afford it, they add bread or wheat into their diet, as well as livestock products that come from feed grains. There is great potential in China.
The Acting Chair: I thank you both for attending today. We appreciated your brief and your oral presentation. It will be taken into consideration along with those of all our other witnesses.
Mr. Edie: It has been our pleasure. Thank you for having us.
The Acting Chair: Senators, we will now hear representatives from the Canadian Bankers Association.
Welcome to our hearings this afternoon. As I suggested to our former witnesses, if you have a brief, and I believe you have, we would appreciate your speaking to it, and then perhaps we can have a dialogue with you.
Mr. Alan Young, Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Bankers Association: We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee this afternoon to provide our views on Bill C-66. We have provided a written submission to the honourable senators, and I do not propose to read that submission. I do, however, have some opening remarks which summarize the content of our submission.
Reform of Part I of the Canada Labour Code has been a subject of consultation and debate among interested parties for almost two years. In spite of this, the banking industry believes that there are three provisions in Bill C-66 which require the attention of this honourable committee. We have described those concerns at some length in our written submission, and we offer some precise wording for possible amendments which would address our concerns. I will come back to those in a few minutes.
The world of work has seen fundamental changes since the early 1970s, when what we now call Part I of the code was last reviewed by government. The banks are eager to see the regulatory environment keep pace with the evolving transformation of labour markets and business conditions. Thus, the CBA was supportive of the government's initiative to review Part I of the Canada Labour Code and to establish the Sims Task Force early in 1995 to conduct a review. The CBA participated fully in the hearings conducted by the Sims Task Force in 1995 and in the consultation process launched early in 1966 by the government on the report of the task force. It is our intention to contribute to the modernization of the legal framework for industrial relations in Canada.
The CBA represents 50 chartered banks in Canada which, along with their subsidiaries, employ over 206,000 Canadians across the country. Within the banking industry, there are approximately 19 bargaining units covering 2,450 employees, the largest unit being approximately 1,800 employees.
The banking industry supports freedom of association and free collective bargaining where a majority of employees choose that method of handling the employer/employee relationship. A collective bargaining regime can work well in some circumstances, but we do not subscribe to the view that it is inherently superior to other methods of structuring the employer/employee relationship. What is important in any approach is open communication, flexibility, and an effective balance of the interests of employer and employee.
The CBA generally commends the Sims Task Force for their 1996 report entitled "Seeking a Balance", which appropriately identifies the competing interests and values which require consideration in order to maintain a stable but adaptable labour relations system. The report was, to a large extent, successful in achieving the balance being sought between labour and management.
Bill C-66 implements many of the recommendations of the task force report, sometimes successfully, but occasionally converting a recommendation into legislation causes difficulties. The banks believe there are serious problems with the provisions on replacement workers, off-site workers, and remedial certification.
The banking industry is pleased that Bill C-66 does not prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes or lock-outs in federally regulated industries. Throughout the consultation process, we, as well as many other employer groups, argued strenuously that replacement workers should be allowed in the federal jurisdiction. We also note that a provision on replacement workers is not necessary at all. The present version of the code addresses unfair labour practices comprehensively and has been doing so in a satisfactory way for nearly 25 years. We find the bill's proposed new clause 94(2.1) on replacement workers to be deficient. It does not go far enough to provide balance, clarity, or guidance on this difficult issue, nor does it, in our view, capture the full majority recommendation of the Sims Task Force report.
We think it would be a mistake to pass the bill with the present wording in place. The provision reflects only one element of the majority recommendation in the Sims report, that is, that replacement workers should be banned if an employer makes use of them for undermining an union's representational capacity. The banking industry agrees that they should not be used for illegitimate purposes, but the provision in the bill does not provide sufficient guidance to the new Canada Industrial Relations Board by, one, acknowledging that the use of replacement workers is a legitimate tool for an employer to maintain viability of the business in a strike or lock-out, and two, by making clear what the test is for measuring whether an unfair labour practice has occurred.
We submit to you that the phrase "undermining the union's representational capacity" is not an effective test. It is vague and ambiguous, and there is no case law in the federal jurisdiction to provide precedents for it. Thus, the CBA recommends to this committee that the phrase "for the purpose of undermining the union's representational capacity" be replaced by the phrase "solely for the purpose of achieving a non-union workplace". This test is clear, and it is based on Sims task force members' knowledge of specific cases.
Turning to the issue of off-site workers, the CBA objects to the new section proposed in the bill which would allow the board, on application by a union, to order an employer to provide names and addresses of employees who work off-site to representatives of the union. We also object to the fact that such an order may include permission for the union to use any electronic system that the employer uses to communicate with the employees.
Unions already have access to many workers such as airline pilots or railway workers who work at locations other than the employer's premises. It seems clear to us that the intent of this new provision is to cover employees who are working in new ways, mostly at home -- that is to say, home workers or "teleworkers". This is an emerging category of worker, and I do not believe we have enough information about this type of worker. Further work is required, in our view, before amendments should be made to the law. In our written submission, we explain why the banking industry would prefer that this section not be included at all in the bill.
Since we understand that this is an issue of concern to the unions, we could more willingly accept its inclusion with some modifications. We have suggested some modifications which cover our two major concerns.
First, the new provision does not appropriately address fundamental privacy issues, particularly the principle requiring consent of an individual before that individual's personal information may be given to a third party. The new provision in the bill, instead of acknowledging the fundamental principle of consent, leaves it up to the new board to establish the conditions which must be met in order to ensure the protection of the privacy of the affected employee. In our view, the law should be clear in this regard. We recommend that clause 109.1 be amended to require that the board obtain employees' consent, as we have suggested on page 5 of our submission.
Second, the bill provides that the board may order an employer to allow a union to make use of any electronic communications system used by the employer to communicate with employees. In our view, this constitutes an unwarranted interference in the employers' business, privacy and internal communication arrangements with employees. We object to such potential intrusions and urge that the committee remove this portion of the provision on off-site workers from the bill.
Finally, I should like to mention briefly the matter of certification and perceived unfair labour practices. The proposed new section 99.1 would permit the new board to certify a union despite lack of evidence of majority support from employees.
If there is evidence of an unfair labour practice on the part of an employer during a union drive for certification, the banks agree that the board must deal with the infraction appropriately. However, it is both unreasonable and unacceptable to expect the board to make a determination on whether the union would or would not have achieved majority support, particularly if the union card-signing never exceeded 50 per cent.
As a consequence, we recommended that the proposed section be amended to provide that, in cases where the employer has been found guilty of engaging in a practice which may have obstructed the union's ability to obtain signed cards, the board should be required to supervise a secret ballot vote to determine if there is majority support for certification. Our recommended wording in this regard is on page 6 of our written submission.
Madam Chair, these are the concerns and the recommendations that the banking industry wishes to draw to the attention of this committee with respect to Bill C-66.
Senator Cogger: Mr. Young, let me take you back to your comments as to clause 94.2 and the use of replacement workers. You suggest an alternative wording. Did you propose that wording to the House of Commons?
Mr. Young: We did not propose specific recommended wording to the House. We obtained legal counsel prior to our appearance before this committee, and we had legal counsel assist us with drafting the specific provisions.
The Acting Chair: Did you appear before the Commons committee?
Mr. Young: I did not personally, but the CBA did.
Senator Cogger: I have a copy of the brief you submitted to the other place, and I noted that this was new wording. That might have been helpful then, but that is water under the bridge.
I share your concern, as do other committee members, I suspect, about the current wording in the bill. The Canadian Labour Congress appeared before us last night. At the end of their presentation, they admitted that there is a position, but no one knows what it means. Frankly, I do not know either. Here we go into the great unknown. We must wait until a body of jurisprudence emerges to define this thing. I am not asking you to comment at this point, but I think it is wrong. Parliament should make the laws and, presumably before putting them in public domain, should have a reasonably clear idea of what they mean. Mind you, the courts and the various administrative boards will be there to help redefine or circumscribe it clearly.
The wording which you now suggest may be an improvement, but I am not sure. Please do not be offended, because it may well be. You state in your brief that, under your new wording, a realistic test would be required in cases where the use of replacement workers is disputed.
One of the questions raised last night was whether the current wording -- which refers to an employer acting for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity -- would be an objective test or a subjective test. You come with alternative wording.
Can you explain to me how you foresee the application of a realistic test? If a complainant says that, to use your wording, their employer is using temporary workers solely for the purpose of achieving a non-union workplace, then what would be the realistic test which would apply there?
Mr. Santo Alborino, Senior Manager, Employee and Industrial Relations, Bank of Montreal, Canadian Bankers Association: I do not think we need to reinvent the tests. The Industrial Relations Board has, over a number of years, dealt with unfair labour practices.
We would refer you briefly to the Sims Task Force report which addressed that issue quite adequately. That report refers to using replacement workers to undermine the union and to achieve a non-unionized workplace. We are choosing these words because this test has already been conducted many times over. In such an instance, the replacement workers should be banned.
With respect to the language proposed about the union's representational capability or capacity, we agree that there could be arguments about the meaning of many of those words. We agree with you that many of those words are not clear, and that is the essence of our submission.
The Sims Task Force report tried to address the situation where replacement workers were being utilized to basically turn away the union and to achieve a non-unionized workplace. We agree that, when that specific situation occurs, it is an unfair labour practice. The board has the power to address that.
Senator Cogger: I am not a labour lawyer. Are you telling me that the phrase "achieving a non-union workplace" is a known expression around which there is jurisprudence?
Mr. Alborino: Enough tests have been conducted under the unfair labour precedents and provisions in Part I of the Canadian industrial relations legislation. In many situations, we ourselves have been before the board.
Senator Cogger: Over time, the terms have become clearly defined or known and interpreted.
Mr. Alborino: That is right. To me, it is quite clear, and the banking industry clearly supports this. If it is demonstrated that an unfair labour practice was used to achieve a non-union workplace, then the board currently has the power to deal with that. It has dealt with such situations in the past, and it makes it clear that that is what it is. There is no ambiguity with respect to the words we are proposing at this time.
Senator Cogger: The minister, I am told, will appear on Monday, so we can run it past him. I do not see many laws that cannot be improved somewhat, sometimes with clearer wording. We will run it past him and see what he has to say.
Mr. David Dorward, Manager, Labour Relations, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce: There seems to be general agreement that people are not sure what the existing proposed wording means. Why reinvent the wheel when we have of existing jurisprudence around the words we have suggested? Our sole purpose was to say we have existing jurisprudence, so why invent new jurisprudence. The whole thrust of the bill was to allow parties to settle matters between themselves, not to complicate things through lengthy judicial proceedings, and that is the sole objective. The wording is clear, and there are objective tests which already exist, so why complicate everyone's life?
Senator Beaudoin: You say that only a small number of your employees are unionized. What is the percentage? Could you tell me why only a small number are unionized? I must admit I am a little bit surprised.
Mr. Dorward: As you know, other than Laurentian Bank, CIBC has the largest number of bargaining units in the big five. Our largest bargaining unit is the Toronto Visa centre, which has close to 600 people represented by the United Steel Workers. That certification goes back about 10 years.
The banking industry today, compared to 10 years ago -- although I must admit I have only been with CIBC for five years -- is quite a different place. We have state-of-the-art human resource policies such as flexible work arrangements, competitive pay, benefits, et cetera. In many cases, I am not sure that our employees have felt the need for a third party to represent them. The banking industry has worked hard in this area as a progressive employer, and I am not sure that it is felt that there has been an overwhelming need to have a third party involved in the employment relationship.
Senator Beaudoin:We have now had the Charter of Rights for 15 years. I heard the word "privacy" a few minutes ago. Is it a lack of privacy, or is it something which you consider as a possible violation of the Charter?
Mr. Alborino: That is an excellent question, and I thank you for giving us the opportunity to address that.
We are proposing these amendments in the context of a situation where employees are not on the employer's premises and a union may be seeking to represent these employees. They want the union representative to be given the employee's home address, information which is specifically personal to the employee, for the purpose of contacting this employee. Although we understand the desire and need for the union to contact the employees -- we are not trying to obstruct that -- we are trying to balance that with the fact that the employee's relationship with the employer is a private one. The employee's home address is a private matter. Therefore, we are submitting wording which will allow the employees to provide their consent to allow this information to be disseminated or provided to the union without the knowledge of the employer so that a relationship can be built between the union and the employee.
We feel that forcing or obliging an employer to provide to a union representative information about an employee's home address, or anything private with respect to that relationship, would be an infringement of privacy.
Senator Beaudoin: There is such a thing as the right of association in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You must interpret the extent to which there is such a right of association. If the employer is under an obligation to provide a list of private addresses, do you feel that may go against the right to privacy?
Mr. Alborino: That is correct. We are not against providing that information, and we will provide that information, but we are asking the board to ensure that the employees consent to our providing that information. We are not objecting to it.
Senator Beaudoin: Is that the only condition?
Mr. Alborino: Yes, that is the only condition.
Senator Beaudoin: If that is the only condition, perhaps it is reasonable in a free and democratic society. After all, some people may have good reason to keep their address secret. If they give their consent, that is another matter. Do you have some proposed wording which would address this?
Mr. Alborino: Yes, we have language which addresses that. We are mindful of the fact that, in the attempt the union may be making to engage these employees in representing them, a third party like ourselves, the employer, has no business being in that dialogue. The language we provide ensures that when we are required to provide this list of names and personal addresses, the board has ensured that consent has been given. I think it is a simple and legitimate request.
Senator Beaudoin: Prima facie, it looks all right, but I am not an expert in labour law.
The Acting Chair: He is, I would suggest, an expert in constitutional law.
Senator Beaudoin: That is another question.
Mr. Dorward: In Quebec, the privacy issue is an emerging concern, and the Province of Quebec has enacted legislation. We attempted, in framing our suggested wording, to simply to allow individuals to balance the right of association with the right to privacy by having the ability to consent to the release of that information.
Senator Beaudoin: Was this discussed with your lawyer?
Mr. Dorward: We certainly sought legal counsel on some of these points, and this is one of them. We have proposed some very simple wording in that area.
Senator Cogger: I spoke to Mr. Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner. He is looking into that. He will let us know by Monday whether, in his view, the bill would cause problems as far as he is concerned. Perhaps that will solve it.
Senator Beaudoin: You cannot get better advise.
Senator Rossiter: I, like Senator Beaudoin, am surprised to hear that there are any unions in the banking industry. Mr. Dorward has referred to the CIBC's Toronto Visa centre having 600 unionized employees. Could we have some information as to how many employees in the banking industry are unionized and how they are classified?
Mr. Dorward: The CIBC has three branches and one other larger unit, which is our mail room at the Commerce Court. The positions which are covered are everything in the unionized environment, from a teller up to an account manager. All aspects in a branch banking system are covered. We have a variety of unions at the CIBC.
Senator Rossiter: Would those three branches be in one province?
Mr. Dorward: No. We have one in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; one in East Angus, Quebec; and one in Powell River, British Columbia. We are truly Canadian. We are spread across the country.
Senator Rossiter: How old are these?
Mr. Dorward: Most of the certificates are close to 10 years old and older.
Senator Rossiter: How many people in the banking industry are we talking about altogether?
Mr. Young: Approximately 2,450 in 19 separate bargaining units.
The Acting Chair: Out of a total population of what?
Mr. Young: Out of 206,000 employees, which includes the banks proper as well as the subsidiary operations of the banks.
Senator Cogger: We are talking about 1 per cent.
Mr. Young: My math is not good, but it works out to about 1 per cent.
Senator Rossiter: Is the unionization process at a standstill, or is it increasing?
Mr. Alborino: The trend we have noticed in the industry is that it is declining.
Senator Rossiter: Why would that be?
Mr. Alborino: Most of the time, I would imagine the employees have chosen to get out of that arrangement. Most of the applications the employees present to the board appear to be no longer represented by the unions. I would have to say that they felt this third party arrangement was no longer viable.
The Acting Chair: Do they have employee associations, or do they have nothing?
Mr. Alborino: If I understand your question correctly, the employee association has a parallel of union representatives. A number of associations within the organization were formed whereby employees have voices to express their needs and requirements.
In my bank, for example, all our employees are surveyed on an annual basis through a questionaire about their working conditions, their relationships with management, and emerging issues with respect to flex work and flex time. There are issues with respect to compensation benefits. That provides us with a tremendous amount of information with which we can respond to these issues. Things like elder care, flexible work arrangements, promoting women through the executive ranks and management ranks, training in education, and choices are made and provided to these employees. There are career information centres. It is through this consultative type of feedback process that the banks keep abreast of what the employees' needs are and which of those needs are most urgent.
There are mechanisms to provide for such things when there is a conflict and a dispute. Ultimately, dispute resolution plays a big role in the banking industry whereby employees are encouraged to bring those issues to the management level, or if they do not feel comfortable, to an independent level where these issues can be addressed. A number of mechanisms provide the employees with the ability to communicate back to the employer as well as resolve issues that may be important to them.
Mr. Dorward: The CIBC is doing things similar to the Bank of Montreal. We are in the midst of setting up a situation where employees have a direct recourse to an ombudsman internally. We subscribe and use alternative dispute resolution fairly extensively. We have little in the way of external litigation with employees.
Senator Maheu: In the process leading up to Bill C-66, as I understand it, employers, employees, the Sims movement, and the minister's intervention personally at several levels were taken into account. Was the banking industry not consulted? Were their opinions not taken into consideration at the beginning?
Mr. Dorward: Yes, I think it is fair to say that the banks were consulted and had input into the various rounds of the consultative process.
I am glad you raised this point. I myself and the banking industry were surprised at the material related to replacement workers. The government did not follow the recommendations of the Sims task force. There seemed to be general consensus on how to handle that issue, and some good wording was included. In this intervention, we are attempting to bring us back to where the Sims task force was.
Off-site workers was never raised as a major issue. As you can imagine, the federally regulated industries do not have many off-site workers.
Senator Maheu: I tend to disagree.
Mr. Dorward: I can speak more to the banking industry. Because of the concerns with financial security, we do not have many people off-site. We have people who occasionally work from home on a few-days-per-week arrangement with their supervisor, but relatively few people work off-site because of the financial security concerns.
Those are two issues which concerned us. Again, on the first issue of replacement workers, we are trying to bring ourselves back closer to what we thought was the understanding.
Senator Maheu: You say that the government or the minister did not follow all the recommendations of the Sims Report. He made it clear that that was not the only item he took into consideration. We cannot expect everything we have asked for to appear in a bill with our wording. After a consultation process, we often find that not everyone agrees with us.
You talked about unions and their intervention in the workplace. The raison d'être of a union is to be in the workplace, to be able to speak to the members or the potential members, and to represent them if there is an ongoing bargaining process with the banks. You must have some fears that some day you may might find more than 1 per cent of your bank employees unionized.
You spoke about questionnaires you put out to your employees. As a woman and as someone who knows many bank employees, or ex-employees, are these questionnaires anonymous? Is there not a possibility of intimidation when you are asking very specific questions of your employees? You are saying that they do not seem to be looking for the obligation to be ruled by this type of law. However, if they were, they may not tell you on a questionnaire unless it was totally anonymous.
As well, you spoke about privacy. Again, I am a bit confused. Do banks not routinely obtain the consent of individuals before sending them information in the mail or sending their list of clients to other units? I get a fair amount of mail from banks, and I do not always ask for it. They did not ask my permission to send it. Why is it different with your employees when a union may want to get in touch with them?
Mr. Alborino: I will address your first point with respect to questionnaires. They are anonymous. As to whether the employees fear that type of questionnaire, I must assume not when 89 per cent respond. I may even be as bold as to say that they look forward to expressing their opinions. Believe me, some of the comments are quite frank, and sometimes disturbing, which leads us to take action toward improving the situation.
The most significant example of that in our industry is the women's task force which was instituted by our president. It did not just happen. These issues were dealt with not just because it is the correct thing to do or because it is legislated, but because it makes good business sense and responds to a desire on the part of employees to move forward in an area where they feel the employer has been lax. That is part of the communication process which must continue.
I believe that process works well, at least within our organization. It has provided us with a tremendous amount of information and has enabled us to respond adequately to those issues. Being directly responsible for the employee opinion survey and taking great pride in the responses of employees, I suggest that it is a good tool, but it did not happen overnight.
[Translation]
Senator Maheu: That is not obvious.
Mr. Alborino: Yes, it is and at times quite so, because I can say without hesitation that the questionnaires that we distribute are revised from time to time to ensure the proper information is collected. Employees look forward to completing them and they do so because a 99 per cent response rate is fairly representative.
[English]
With respect to the privacy issue, we are not objecting. I wish to make clear that we are not objecting to the union obtaining information. We are simply responding to what we think is important to employees, and that the providing of their consent to that information being divulged to a third party. We are providing language to that effect.
Senator Maheu: The bank never asked my permission to send me mail.You are objecting to the possibility of invasion of privacy, and I do not think you practise what you are preach.
Mr. Young: The Canadian Bankers Association has a privacy code which was certified last year by the Canadian Standards Association as meeting the CSA standard for privacy. One of the provisions of the CBA code specifically and explicitly indicates that customers can withhold their consent to the use of their information and can withdraw that consent.
If a customer has some concern about the use of information, each of the major banks now has an internal ombudsman who can receive privacy concerns. As of the end of March of this year, the Canadian banking ombudsman, which covers the entire industry, will accept complaints from retail customers about issues such as privacy. Therefore, mechanisms within the industry address those concerns.
The Acting Chair: Have you any final comments?
Mr. Young: We have had a good afternoon, and we appreciate your interest and your questions.
The Acting Chair: We appreciate the light you have shed on a number of matters.
We welcome now, from the British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association, Mr. Robert Wilds.
Please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Robert V. Wilds, President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association: Madam Chair, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to this proposed legislation which has significant implications for our industry. I will provide you with a brief overview of our association and then comment on two specific provisions of the bill which cause major concern both to our members and to the customers of our industry.
Before proceeding, our industry congratulates the government on many of the proposed changes to the code. Included in those we think are to the betterment of the labour relations environment are the amendments to the Canada Labour Relations Board, the provisions for strike lock-out notice, requirements for the taking of strike lock-out votes on a timely basis, and the streamlining of the entire bargaining process.
By way of introduction, our association is an unaccredited employers' association which currently has 77 member companies engaged in ship operations, ship agency, stevedoring, dock operations, and bulk loading operations at Canadian West Coast ports. A list of our membership is attached for your information.
Our primary activities involve providing labour relations advice and services to our membership. We handle day-to-day labour relations, collective agreement administration, discipline of the workforce, grievance administration, arbitration, human rights, employment equity, and other such matters. We also provide advice and assistance in health and safety claims management and are responsible for ministry longshore training as well. We are responsible for the negotiation of the collective agreement on behalf of our membership with the International Longshoremen and Warehousemans Union.
Our association operates the Vancouver dispatch centre, and we jointly operate with the longshoremen dispatch centres in Stewart, Prince Rupert, New Westminster, Chemainus, Port Alberni, and Victoria, British Columbia.
All of our activities are conducted pursuant to the Canada Labour Code. As a result of that, we participated in hearings both with the industrial inquiry commission with respect to West Coast ports and with the Sims Task Force appointed to review Part I of the Canada Labour Code. We also appeared before the human resource development committee of the House of Commons.
Our industry is one of the key service providers in the transportation chain for Canadian imports and exports. As such, any disruption between ourselves and the bargaining agent for our employees, the ILWU Canadian area, has an immediate impact on the flow of all cargos handled at the majority of west coast ports.
The economic implications of a dispute locally, regionally, and nationally are staggering. Canadian exporters are attempting to compete in the international marketplace and are facing increased competition from many suppliers of commodities being produced in South America and in Asian countries, as well as Australia. Until recently, Canadian producers enjoyed limited competition from those producers.
The entire Canadian transportation system has been undergoing significant change due to deregulation in addition to competitive pressures from other countries. Industries such as ours, for the most part, add cost, not value, to the goods we handle. For that reason, we must continually seek productivity improvements if we are to assist Canadian producers in retaining their market share. The Canada Labour Code provides us with the legislative framework which regulates our labour relations activities.
Our industry is concerned about two sections of the proposed legislation. We have other concerns about the bill, but our primary concern is with clauses 47.3 and 87.71, which I am sure is not a surprise.
With respect to clause 47.3, the success of contracts for services provision, we believe that that clause imposes a duty to ensure that prospective contractors compensate employees at rates not less than those paid to employees of the former contractor or as specified in the collective agreement covering the former contractor's employees. We believe that this represents an unwarranted intrusion into the tendering process and do not think it is justified. It will impede the federally regulated employers' ability to achieve cost reductions through the tendering process.
More troubling to our industry is clause 47.3 (1)(b), whereby the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, may by regulation designate any other federal industry to be covered by this clause. In our view, this could effectively preclude ports, railways, and others from achieving potential cost savings by effectively negating their tendering processes. It also contradicts the government's desire to foster significant improvement in the transportation sector of our economy.
Of greatest concern to our industry is clause 87.7 (1). I heard the presentation by the Prairie Pools representatives. The record needs to state clearly that our industry also has a major concern for the disruption and the flow of grain to its marketplace. However, we have a far greater concern, and that is the disruption of the flow of all commodities to the customers.
Many Canadians are employed in industries other than grain, including coal, sulphur, potash, forest products, and petrochemicals. I know you heard from some of them, and I understand you will hear from some of the other shippers. Those customers of our members rely on our services at West Coast Canadian ports.
I heard comments by representatives of the Prairie Pools about the bargaining process in our industry. With all due respect, those comments were made without any knowledge of what takes place in the bargaining process in our industry. I am not competent and capable of commenting on what takes place in the bargaining between the British Columbia terminal elevator operators and their unions. It is quite correct the terminal operators do not sit at our bargaining table and therefore are not familiar with what takes place in our industry.
There have been four labour disputes in longshoring since 1986. The one in 1986 lasted a total of six days. The cause of that dispute was a desire in the industry to eliminate the container clause which was precluding Canadian cargo from coming into Canadian ports.
Since the elimination of that provision, from 1998 onward, our volumes of containers have increased from 278,000 to in excess of 600,000. Obviously, there has been significant increased work opportunity associated with us removing that clause from the collective agreement. Most unfortunately, it took a labour dispute to do it, but that was what was required.
A labour dispute also occurred between ourselves and the longshoremen in 1984. Our industry put on the bargaining table one of the largest settlements in the country. The settlement was never taken back to the membership for a vote, but we incurred a strike. We were legislated back to work. We were in final position, and binding arbitration was imposed. The employer's position was upheld in the process.
It is not always possible to obtain a collective agreement. Those are the only two disputes that have occurred between our organization and the longshoremen since 1986.
There have been two disputes between another association, the Foreman's Association, and their employees, one of which lasted for a total of six days. One dispute required legislation in 1995 and took a total of four days.
It has been suggested that our industry has used grain as a means of government involvement in resolving our disputes. Let me assure you that, from our position, we do not seek and have not wanted government involvement in the resolution of our disputes.
One must take into consideration the consequences of a labour dispute between longshoremen and employers at the West Coast. We are service providers. The people who suffer the consequences of our labour dispute are not the direct participants in that labour dispute. They are innocent third parties who pay the intrusion.
There is a responsibility for government to act when the national economy is affected to such a significant extent, but to suggest that we are the only ones that affect grain is incorrect. In addition to disputes between the B.C. terminal operators and their employees, two disputes occurred during this same period of time with the railways. One dispute with the Transport Canada employees at PSAC shut down the grain industry. There have also been disputes with the BC Federation of Labour.
In total, longshoring shut down the industry four times in the last 11 years for a total of 25 days, and six other disputes were in excess of 90 days. If the intent of the legislation is to ensure that grain moves, then I guess we would question why it is that only longshoring is being singled out and is being required to work during a legitimate labour dispute between ourselves and our employees. Why not the railway? Why does the legislation not preclude PSAC inspectors from striking? Why are the grain elevators allowed to strike?
Either the commodity should be required to be handled by everyone, or we should all be given equal treatment. That is a major concern that we have with this piece of legislation. We and we only are being singled out and must provide a portion of our work force with a work opportunity while we are in a legal strike walkout position.
The government, on one hand, is indicating that employers must not employ replacement workers, and ,on the other hand, we are being told to provide work to our employees when we are in a legal labour dispute. It may not be many jobs, but consider a local such as Prince Rupert. We have 65 union employees. If we work regularly on grain in Prince Rupert, we conceivably put 10 to 15 per cent of the work force to work every day during a labour dispute under this legislation. What great incentive will that put on the work force to come to the conclusion that there should be a collective agreement with the other locals in the industry? In the port of Vancouver, we could employ as many as 50 to 75 employees a day out of an available work force of about 1,000 to 1,500. We would be subsidizing a labour dispute against ourselves. We do not believe that that is equitable.
We are looking for equity in this legislation. We want a balance. Our industry proposed, both to the Sims task force and to the industrial inquiry commission on west coast ports, that we not be allowed to strike and that we should not be able to hold the Canadian economy at ransom in a labour dispute. We recognized the consequences of that taking place, so we proposed alternatives. We are certainly in favour of the collective bargaining process. These are industries where the consequences of the right to strike and lock-out in a labour dispute are paid by third parties and not the parties involved. We must revisit that.
We have proposed that there should be means of resolving our disputes after we have gone through the collective bargaining process. If we have economic disputes, we think final offer of position of binding arbitration is the answer. Non-economic issues, rights, manning, or other issues should be resolved by mediation, arbitration, fact-finding, or any reasonable method short of a labour dispute.
We made those recommendations to the minister and to all of the people holding hearings, but that was not acceptable. At the end every the day, we find ourselves being faced with one commodity being set aside and treated differently from all others. We have a major problem with that.
I would be happy to try to answer any questions.
The Acting Chair: I gather you feel that you are being discriminated against in two ways: first, with respect to the other owners or producers; and second, in that the railways, elevators, and so on are not under the same obligation as the ports.
Mr. Wilds: That is correct.
The Acting Chair: You say that you are an unaccredited employer. What does that mean?
Mr. Wild: Any member companies are free to join or leave the association at their will.
Senator Maheu: I listened to your presentation with a great deal of interest because, in spite of what you appear to be saying to us, we heard that often the union is holding the rest of the industry as a hostage and you are waiting for the government to enforce back-to-work legislation.
Is it true that the grain elevators and the grain companies are not members of the BCMEA whereas the potash, sulphur, and forest product groups do have something to say about what is going on with the strike and the collective bargaining input because they are members of your group? Are they not members of the board of directors? Do the associations have no representation whatsoever on your boards? I have heard that they does.
Mr. Wilds: Sulphur has a representation on our board because they happen to own Pacific Coast Terminals. The forest industry is not represented on our board. The potash industry are part owners of Neptune Bulk Terminals. They own part of that.
Senator Maheu: What about forest products?
Mr. Wilds: No forest product companies are on our board of directors. The elevator companies are not members of our group. They have their own association. They have a different union than we have. It would not be appropriate that they be on our board unless they were employing longshore workers.
Senator Maheu: The point they were making was they had no say in the bargaining process.
Mr. Wild: They have as much say as any customer which uses our member companies as a service. That is the simplest answer. They have as much input into the collective bargaining process as any other customer of the port of Vancouver.
Senator Maheu: How many strikes have you had in the past 10 years when you were not legislated back to work?
Mr. Wilds: We have not had any. We had one labour dispute in the last 10 years out of all our collective bargaining. In the last collective agreement we negotiated, we settled prior to the expiry date. It was negotiated for a three-year term and does not expire until December 31, 1998. It was settled before the expiry date of the previous contract. To suggest that we do not bargain in our industry is a bit presumptuous.
Do we have problems? Yes. Is it possible we will have a dispute in the future? I cannot predict, but we continue to make changes. We are continually under criticism for the cost of our industry. I do not know how you change that when you must make changes which are not palatable to your work force. That is happening in every other industry.
Not many employees, including me, line up to hand things back to their employer. We are all human, and we understand that, but if we must make changes, then we may find ourselves in a position where we take issue with some things. Therefore, we recommended alternative methods of resolving those issues.
Senator Maheu: Are the powers of the board that disturbing to you as they are put forward in Bill C-66?
Mr. Wild:To which board to you refer, the Industrial Relations Board?
Senator Maheu: Yes.
Mr. Wilds: We had some concerns about it, but our use of the labour relations board has been minimal over the years. I can say with all due respect that the relationship we have in our industry with our work force on a day-to-day basis is as good or better than most. We have had a problem at collective bargaining. That has been improving. We have negotiated a number of contracts since 1986, and we have had one labour dispute. That should not have happened, but it did.
We are not greatly disturbed by the amendments. We made many proposals that were included in the revisions to the Canada Labour Relations Board. We support that. We have some concerns about the term "replacement worker" and the language, similar to the concerns the bankers mentioned, but our primary concern is clause 87.7(1). Why one commodity? Why not all of us?
The Acting Chair: You heard the explanation that they are recognized in the Constitution as being an advantage to Canadians. However, as I said last night, when the Constitution was framed, there probably was not a petrochemical industry at that time.
Mr. Wilds: I would not want to suggest to the other industries that they are not an advantage to Canada either, because they provide a tremendous amount of tax dollars through payroll to Canada as well. We are all to the advantage of Canada, and we want to keep all of the cargoes.
Senator Cogger: I was out of the room when you began your presentation. Will you take me through the brief history concerning the number of labour stoppages? When I came in, you were giving a picture about how many times there have been problems with the movement of grain over the past 10 years and to whom it was attributable.
Mr. Wilds: There have been four labour disputes attributable to the longshore industry for a total of 25 days. Two of them were between ourselves and our work force, and two of them were between another association and the supervision in our industry, the longshore foremen.
In addition to that, there have been six other labour disputes totalling in excess of 90 days which have involved the railways on two occasions; the grain workers and their employers on two occasions; the Government of Canada, Transport, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada; and a one-day general strike by the B.C. Federation of Labour. All these disputes disrupted the flow of grain.
Senator Cogger: Between the railways, the grain employees, PSAC, the B.C. Federation of Labour, and so on, overall, it totalled more than 90 days?
Mr. Wilds: Yes.
Senator Cogger: Mr. Edie of PPI told us that, over the last 10 years, full grain to export position has been stopped 16 times, resulting in 230 days. Why is that? Why did this grain stop for 230 days?
Mr. Wilds: I cannot answer that.
Senator Cogger: Your accounting amounts to 50 per cent of his accounting.
Mr. Wilds: You will have to ask Mr. Edie. I do not have his statistics. I only know what our records show. Quite frankly, I can speak only for our industry. That may well have been for a period longer than 10 years. I believe our records are in sync with the majority of what was said.
Senator Cogger: If, over the last 10 years, clause 87.7 per cent had been in place, of the 115 days you mention, clause 87.7 would have solved less than 25 per cent, more or less; is that right?
Mr. Wilds: Yes.
Senator Cogger: That means 25 days out of 115.
Mr. Wilds: Yes.
Senator Cogger: I see your point. If, as a result of the Constitution, Canada recognizes grain of such importance that it becomes of national importance, then all aspects of it -- not just the stevedoring but anyone touching grain from one end of the process to the other -- should be subject to 87.7. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Wilds: That is our view. We have difficulty understanding why only we are being singled out in this particular legislation. Why are the railways not included?
Senator Cogger: Why would the government go out of its way to straighten out less than 25 per cent of the problem if the approach is that this is of general importance?
Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Edie earlier?
Mr. Wilds: Yes.
Senator Cogger: I think he said that grain accounts for about 17 per cent of the volume. What is the next biggest commodity in volume terms?
Mr. Wilds: My figures are for 1995.
Senator Cogger: Mr. Wilds, do your members handle 100 per cent of these shipments?
Mr. Wilds: No. We do not handle the Westshore coal terminal, and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 million to 25 million tonnes of coal moves out of the West Coast. However, in 1995, our members handled 54.358 million tonnes of cargo, of which one-third was grain. The largest commodities are our bulk commodities: coal, sulphur, and potash. We handled 4.5 million tonnes of lumber, almost 5.9 million tonnes of general cargo, and 4.7 million tonnes of cargo in containers.
Senator Cogger: Bulk cargo of various kinds would represent how much?
Mr. Wilds: In fairness, including grain, Canadian West Coast ports are basically bulk ports. The majority of our cargo is bulk, including coal, sulphur, potash, petrochemicals, washed rock, and grain. The Port of Vancouver has a reputation from a tonnage standpoint in North America because we are primarily bulk exporting ports. We handle a fair amount of break bulk, and we are increasing our container activity significantly. Quite frankly, about 28.8 per cent of our export containers contain specialty grains.
Senator Beaudoin: I understand your concern. However, this is not a matter of equality. Under our Constitution, it is up to Parliament to declare, in a statute, that works and undertakings may be declared for the general advantage of Canada. Under that section, grain elevators have been declared for the general advantage of Canada, so they come under the federal jurisdiction. Your industry is stevedoring, is it not?
Mr. Wilds: Stevedoring, dock operating, and ship operations.
Senator Beaudoin: You come under the authority of Parliament, then, as far as legislation is concerned. At first, grain elevators did not come under the federal competence. They were declared to come under federal competence in order to give the Parliament of Canada jurisdiction over the grain industry. However, in your case, you are already under the federal jurisdiction, and that is probably why you have not been declared to the general advantage of Canada. It does not mean that you cannot be so declared, because you may be. However, Parliament has a choice. It is not under an obligation to declare all works and undertakings for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr. Wilds: Let me ask you this, senator: Why is it, then, that only longshoring is singled out? Why are the railways not included in this legislation under clause 87.1? You cannot move the grain to our ports if you do not have railways. If grain is for the advantage of Canada --
Senator Beaudoin: Grain has been declared that already.
Mr. Wilds: That is fine, but the railways also move grain. The railways can strike tomorrow, and the grain will not move to the port. Why can we not strike?
Senator Beaudoin: We are going in the right direction. The railways come under federal authority.
Senator Cogger: However, they are not forced to handle grain, as are these people. That is the problem.
Mr. Wilds: We are facing discrimination.
Senator Cogger: When it comes to grain, they cannot strike. When it comes to grain, the railways can strike.
His position seems to be that if grain is for the general advantage of Canada, then everything -- not just the ferrying by boats or the loading of ships -- is directly related.
Senator Beaudoin: You say that you are as directly connected with grain as are the others.
Mr. Wilds: The railways carry it to the elevators, and we load the ships from the elevator.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to think about this.
Mr. Wilds: We are not interested in stopping the flow of grain. We are interested in ensuring that everything flows. We would love nothing more than to have everything moving. We believe there are ways to do that and to still have collective bargaining, but we cannot accept selective requirements to work our commodities. It is not equitable to the rest of the producers in this country, nor to the importers, for that matter.
The Acting Chair: We should put this case to the minister.
Senator Perrault: Honourable senators, we heard some challenging and strong views from this organization. I can say that, as far as ports are concerned, the ports of Canada's west coast are some of the best run in the entire world. It is a matter of record, and we all take pride in that.
I understand your concern. You want binding arbitration to settle disputes which affect industry on the West Coast shipping through that port? It comes down to that.
Mr. Wilds: We want binding methods of doing it without having to specify exactly what it is.
Senator Perrault: Whatever it is, arbitration or whatever.
Mr. Wilds: Yes, any one of a number of methods of resolving disagreements, depending on the nature of the issues in dispute.
Senator Perrault: What is the hourly wage rate paid to stevedores these days, the longshoremen?
Mr. Wilds: I believe the current rate on the day shift is in excess of $24 an hour, not counting benefits.
Senator Perrault: What would that mean over a period of a year to a worker with some seniority?
Mr. Wilds: Our average worker last year made approximately $70,000.
The Acting Chair: That is better than us.
Mr. Wilds: It is better than many people. We are not a poor-paying industry.
Senator Perrault: You do have a good relationship with those in the industry, however?
Mr. Wilds: Yes, we do.
Senator Perrault: Your views are important. We have heard the general view expressed around the table that, yes, it is progress and it is better than that which we have had, but it could be improved. Would you like to see this delayed until the new parliament? There are rumours that there may be an election. We never know what may transpire.
Mr. Wilds: I heard those rumours myself. Our view would be that, despite the fact that there are significant improvements proposed in this legislation, without a satisfactory resolution to this issue, we think it is more prudent to delay it than to put it through without properly dealing with this issue.
Senator Perrault: What would you like to see added or subtracted from the draft of the bill that we have? Do you want these dispute-solving procedures delineated?
Mr. Wilds: Some latitude needs to be left to the authority or to Parliament on how to deal with an issue as consequential as a dispute at the ports. To say that it must be this or that or the other thing significantly depends on the issues in dispute.
I would not want the government to say that we should go to final-position, binding arbitration if we are dealing with management rights, manning issues, or those types of issues where it is important for a third party to have input and to have latitude to make a decision on those issues. However, if it is economic, and if we are offering $1 and they want $1.50, I do not need a third party to come in and say, "Give them $1.25." We can do that. That is not what it is about.
Senator Perrault: What sorts of competition are we facing from Tacoma, Portland, Seattle, and these other ports? Are you concerned?
Mr. Wilds: Our biggest competition today is in the container side. We now have 1.5 million tonnes of potash going to Portland. If Portland is to be successful, they need to double that tonnage of bulk commodity. They are calling on sulphur producers and everyone else to try to persuade them to bring their tonnages to Portland, and they will be successful in getting some.
You spoke today of your concerns about Canadian grains moving south. It is moving south, and we do not like it either. Quite frankly, they were not allowed that option under the WGTA rules in the event of a labour dispute at West Coast ports. There may have been more justification for this kind of proposed legislation then than there is today. Today, they have exactly the same options as every other commodity, and they could use other ports. That should provide the impetus to our industry and to our employees to say, "We had better get our act together and solve our own labour relations; otherwise, our cargo will go somewhere else and our jobs will be on the line, as well as those of other Canadians."
Senator Perrault: Given the nature of international competition, is there a case being made here for a game plan for the entire port relating to wages, resolution of disputes, and the way we market ourselves?
Mr. Wilds: There is a role to play and mechanisms to resolve disputes. We have had things happen in third party interventions about which we are not happy either. We are now trying to get out of our collective agreements. There are risks with that. Are the risks associated with that any greater than the risks associated with the loss of Canadian exports through Canadian ports?
Senator Perrault: It is a free society, and we have a right to argue our positions.
Senator Maheu: As a point of information, some of your member companies have "timber" and "forest" in their names. You said that there was nothing touching lumber. Do any of those have anything to do with lumber?
Mr. Wilds: You asked me if they were on the board. They carry forest products.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for attending today. We needed to hear from your organization.
The committee adjourned.