[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 14, 1996
.0906 
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome you here to the hearings on Bill C-3. We have a time restraint in front of us. We have the minister here with us this morning. I understand he has another appointment at 10 a.m.
I appreciate your being here, Mr. Minister.
Alfonso Gagliano, perhaps you'd like to take it away.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Employment): Thank you very much, sir. I apologize if I'm putting some time constraint on the committee. Unfortunately, I'm wearing two hats. My other hat is that of Deputy House Leader. At 10 a.m. I have to be in the House to start the business of the House. But if more time is required, I'd be glad to go and start things in the House and come back right away, sir.
[Translation]
I am pleased to appear today before the Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to discuss Bill C-3, and ask to amend the Canada Labour Code (Nuclear Undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another act.
As the members of the committee are aware, this bill, whose intent is to promote stable and fruitful labour relations in Canadian nuclear facilities, was carried at first reading the 1st of March and at second reading the 8th of March 1996.
During the debate at second reading, I explained the decision handed down in 1993 by the Supreme Court of Canada whereby Part I of the Canada Labour Code, the code that regulates labour relations, would apply to workers in Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities. It was clear in this decision that Parts II and III of the Code, on occupational health and safety, and labour standards respectively, and the Non Smokers Health Act would also apply to these workers.
[English]
From a practical perspective, the decision resulted in a split jurisdiction for labour laws at Ontario Hydro. It means 42% of Ontario Hydro's employees are under federal jurisdiction while the rest of the workforce is subject to the labour laws of Ontario. This is an exceptional circumstance and results in a complicated situation whereby employees and their unions must conform to two comparable but slightly different labour legislation regimes.
About occupational safety and health, Ontario Hydro has studied the situation and concluded that while federal and provincial labour laws offer employees the same protection, the methods prescribed for assuring this protection differ. These differences result in a financial cost for compliance with the law without an increase in protection for the employees.
From the perspective of industrial relations, the company and the union must cope with two separate conciliation processes in negotiating collective agreements. This has happened at an enterprise that had a long-standing collective bargaining relationship under the provincial regime, going back fifty years.
[Translation]
In early 1994, federal and provincial officials started discussing ways to correct and simplify the situation. At first, the discussions that involved Ontario Hydro and the unions were about occupational health and safety legislation.
Later, officials of both governments concluded that it would be more practical and logical to apply all provincial labour laws to Ontario Hydro, including ad hoc legislation that the province could adopt in the future. Because of the problems involved in sharing jurisdictions and in the nature of the work Ontario Hydro does, it was felt that applying provincial labour laws would be the best way to guarantee stable and fruitful labour relations at Ontario Hydro.
[English]
It is also important to note that the Supreme Court decision has implications for the Point Lepreau generating station in New Brunswick and Gentilly-2 in Quebec. Both provincial crowns appear to be in a legislative void for the purposes of labour law, although in practice provincial laws continue to be applied.
.0910
In the case of Gentilly-2, this was confirmed by a 1995 Federal Court of Appeal decision. In rendering its decision, the Federal Court of Appeal invited Parliament to fill the void forthwith.
Mr. Chairman, by amending the Canada Labour Code and the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-3 will provide a mechanism that allows for the application of provincial labour law at nuclear facilities. The bill provides a mechanism to eliminate the split jurisdiction over Ontario Hydro and can also be applied to the nuclear facilities in New Brunswick and Quebec after crown immunity has been lifted. In addition, the mechanism may be applied to uranium mines in Saskatchewan, which are also regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a few minutes outlining how the provisions contained in Bill C-3 would eliminate the split jurisdiction over Ontario Hydro. First, the company is exempted from having to comply with the Canada Labour Code. At the same time it's made subject to provincial labour laws incorporated by reference to federal regulation. The mechanism may be triggered by passing regulations dealing with industrial relations, including ad hoc or emergency legislation, occupational safety and health and labour standards, and workplace smoking rules and regulations. Once the regulations are in place, provincial labour laws can be applied to nuclear facilities.
About occupational safety and health, the bill provides that provincial occupational safety and health inspectors may carry out on-site inspections. The bill also allows provincial labour relations boards to hear and determine cases of labour relation law applying to these nuclear facilities.
[Translation]
In terms of collective bargaining, under the bill the bargaining agent certified under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, remains the workers, bargaining agent. This guarantees the agent's successor right and prevents other unions from submitting a certification request to represent the bargaining unit outside the procedure established for this purpose.
Furthermore, any collective agreement signed under Part I of the Canada Labour Code remains in effect until the expiry date initially set. Thus, for both parties covered by the agreement, rights, benefits and obligations agreed upon are maintained. The bill also contains provisions covering the scope of the regulations, those who are responsible for applying them, penalties in case they are violated, those responsible for taking legal action and the use of fines.
[English]
In closing, I would like to emphasize two points. The first is that this bill does not in any way compromise or relieve the federal government of its responsibility in the area of radiation safety at nuclear facilities through the Atomic Energy Control Board. This bill in no way alters this responsibility. Only conventional occupational safety and health laws are affected by this bill. It is important to recognize that conventional and non-nuclear-related occupational safety and health legislation administered by the province has co-existed for many years with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act. I also wish to emphasize that Bill C-3 merely reinstates the status quo that existed before the 1993 Supreme Court decision and passage of the bill will effect a return to business as usual.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to introduce Mr. Warren Edmondson, who is the director general for the mediation service of the labour program.
The Chairman: Would the director general have any short statement he would want to include with this now, before we go to questions for the minister?
Mr. Warren Edmondson (Director General, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Department of Human Resources Development): No, Mr. Chairman, not at this point. I think in his opening statement the minister has described the situation and the issues that have faced us for a couple of years, and the situation continues. I think he's outlined very adequately and comprehensively the situation we're trying to address.
.0915
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We'll start our questioning in the regular way, with the official opposition. With the time constraint, we probably have a total of ten minutes for each party for questions and answers.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): First, we were told that when this bill is passed, it will affect approximately 9,000 workers. Is that also the department's estimate?
Mr. Edmondson: The total is 9,000.
Mr. Ménard: Therefore, it will be under 10,000 workers, that is to say approximately 9,000, of whom 6,000 are in Ontario. Am I right?
Mr. Edmondson: I think it is about 6,000.
Mr. Ménard: Those numbers are reasonable estimates are they not?
Mr. Edmondson: I'm not absolutely sure, but I can get the figures.
Mr. Ménard: You wouldn't bet a large beer on it, but it is in that range.
Mr. Edmondson: Yes.
Mr. Ménard: I just want to make sure I understand the process. The Minister is proposing a bill that would bring back the status quo following a decision handed down by the Supreme Court. What is the status of negotiations with Ontario and Quebec? Am I to understand that the Minister, who has come before us this morning, has the support of the governments of Quebec and Ontario through his counterparts in the Labour ministries of these provinces, to give back his jurisdiction in the nuclear sector? Can he declare on his honour that he has the support of his two main counterparts?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes. I spoke several times over the phone with the Quebec Minister of Labour and I know that my officials have had discussions with officials from the ministries of Labour of Ontario and New Brunswick. All three provinces have agreed on us introducing this bill.
Of course, the Quebec Minister of Labour told us that he would have liked us to put the referral in the bill itself, but more than one province is involved. I explained that that wasn't possible but that we were committed, and I made this commitment officially during second reading in the House, to proceed immediately. Furthermore, the parties have started discussing draft regulations.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Minister, that was essentially what I wanted to talk about with you. You understand that the Bloc supports any reattribution of jurisdiction that you or members of your government would want to undertake with provinces. That goes without saying.
The government of Quebec told me that it hoped that provincial legislation would be explicitly referenced in the bill. I know that there are at least six laws in Quebec that could be affected, namely the Construction Law, the labour standards, etc. Could you tell us clearly why this is not possible?
If the opposition were to present an official amendment so that there would be referencing to provincial legislation in the bill, you would be inclined to accept it I believe.
Mr. Gagliano: In theory that is not a problem. Bill C-3 was conceived in such a way as to take into account completely different cases in Ontario. For example, in Ontario we are directly involved. The Canada Labour Code currently applies to Ontario Hydro whereas is in Quebec, Gentilly-2, for example, even when the decision was handed down, remains under provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec's situation is technically not as complicated as Ontario's. However, if you would like to present an amendment, we are willing to consider it and if we feel we can include it in the bill, I have no objection.
Warren might want to add something. Yesterday again, at the end of the day, we had discussions with Quebec. As far as I'm concerned, I am willing to consider all possibilities. But technically there are problems and that is why it was not possible to...
.0920
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Minister, just so that it is very clear to the senior official, Quebec's position, as it stands to date - and it probably doesn't come as a surprise to you if I say that we are in close contact, not incestuous contact, with Quebec - can be summed up in three points. First, Quebec would like that provincial legislation be referenced directly in the federal legislation and not via regulations.
Second, it hopes that such referencing would apply - as soon as the legislation comes into effect - to all provincial laws applicable to workers of undertakings that come under the Atomic Energy Control Act, that is, six to our knowledge. If you accept the first point, you shouldn't have a problem with the second.
Third, if need be the legislation could also provide for provincial laws not applying, through regulations by the Governor in Council.
Do you think that these claims could become legislative goals?
Mr. Edmondson: With your permission, Mr. Ménard, it would be easier for me to answer in English.
Mr. Ménard: Go ahead, we have translation.
[English]
Mr. Edmondson: Just to clarify on your first point.... Somebody was kind enough to give me the actual numbers, if I can revisit that subject. The totals are approximately 10,000 people who are in nuclear facilities: 9,000 in Ontario, 500 in Quebec, and 400 in New Brunswick.
The mechanism we have included in the bill was the subject of discussion among the lawyers, who preoccupied themselves very well with these issues for a period of two years. The conclusion was that this was the preferred option in the interest of both provinces and the federal government in order to expedite and ensure that things could happen without, first of all, every time there was a change in a provincial labour law, the requirement for the federal government to come back to the House. The regulation-making mechanism basically allows the federal government, through the regulatory process, to react to change that may take place in the provincial jurisdiction.
I can give an example that may help clarify it. It's because provincial governments fundamentally have the responsibility at present for regulating only non-nuclear operations in their hydro facilities that at present they only have the authority and ability to pass a law that would apply to those non-nuclear workers. If, for example, tomorrow the Province of Quebec or Ontario, Saskatchewan or New Brunswick, decided to pass a labour law that made absolute sense, it could in fact only pass that law and have application of that law to provincial workers. We would need some way to ensure that law actually applies to both nuclear and nuclear. As a result, it may require some flexibility in the regulation-making process, simply to make a minor amendment to ensure the bill would apply to both nuclear and non-nuclear.
But fundamentally, as the minister says, I think the intention was very clear that where provinces want jurisdiction, this would happen, through the regulation-making process. I thought the discussions we had with Quebec officials on Friday morning on this issue...because they very clearly described their concerns with our lawyers. I thought we had addressed them quite well, and the outcome of those discussions on Friday morning was what would be an amendment to the bill that would ensure there would be consultation with the provinces.
That's all I can add for now. I think you have to bear in mind that the bill basically has potential application to four provinces; that the regulation-making process, the mechanism, allows flexibility to address future situations. It also allows the flexibility in fact to apply to other provinces, should it happen that at some point they become governed by the Atomic Energy Control Act, and allows the refinements I spoke about in ensuring that it would be applied to both the non-nuclear and the nuclear sides, from the legal point of view.
.0925
I'm not sure if Yvonne could add to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: It is important to understand that for a province there is a difference between a regulatory framework and a legislative framework. As elected representatives we understand what a regulation can achieve. Another regulation can undo that regulation without input by members.
I think you will agree, Mr. Edmondson, that labour relations have not reached a point where we could expect two, three or four new labour laws over the next few years.
The Quebec government compiled approximately six labour relations acts and there is no indication that they will be reviewed on a regular basis.
So, if I understand correctly, the Quebec government was not satisfied with the option of a regulatory framework.
I do not know when you spoke with the minister's counterpart, but if I am not mistaken, the Labour Minister has been very adamant about his desire to include specific referencing in the bill rather than through regulations. Mr. Chairman, that is a matter our committee should look into.
I would like to ask two more questions, if you don't mind. Since this is the first time, perhaps you could be a little more lenient.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry; we can't on this round, at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: There will be another round, just like in boxing.
[English]
The Chairman: I don't think we're going to have the fight today, since the minister has to....
Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
We'll proceed to Mr. Johnston from the Reform Party.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): On page 2 of the address that the minister gave in the House there's a paragraph regarding power tools and the various CSA-approved plugs. How does this affect this bill?
Mr. Gagliano: You're referring to the speech I gave in the House -
Mr. Johnston: In the House.
Mr. Gagliano: - concerning security and safety in the workplace and the difference between the federal and the provincial regulation of health and security.
Mr. Johnston: Does that then represent a transfer of that jurisdiction in that area?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes, because all the jurisdiction -
Mr. Johnston: So this is given just as an example?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes, this is an example of the difference between the two. Some workers are subject to that for safety and the others.... Once this goes through, there will be only one safety code.
Mr. Johnston: Referring to the same speech, you talked about the mechanism that this bill would provide. Could you give me an idea of a timeframe we're talking about? For instance, you say that the mechanism may be triggered by passing regulations in respect of industrial relations, including ad hoc or emergency legislation. Could you give me a timeframe or tell me what you're talking about there?
Mr. Gagliano: I believe we have undertaken consultations, at least with Quebec and Ontario, before passing regulations. I expect that in Quebec there will be very simple regulation, because we're not there. Ontario might take more time, because we are there and there are all the transfers in terms of labour collective agreements and other agreements and other legislation. So it might take more time. I don't know the situation. I don't know if the officials really have a timeframe.
Warren or Madame Beaupré.
Mr. Edmondson: We've indicated, both to Quebec and to Ontario, that we are prepared to sit down with them immediately in order to start working together on regulations.
If this is going to work, then obviously we need to have agreement on what would work and how it would work and on fine-tuning it. But we're prepared to sit down on Monday morning with officials from both provinces and start working on it - including New Brunswick, which also is anxious to proceed quite quickly.
.0930
If you're interested in the process, what we need to do first is sit down to talk to them about the specifics of the regulations. It may even be necessary...for example, in the case of occupational safety and health, in terms of how the provinces actually would apply their legislation - whether or not a memorandum of understanding on the utilization of resources would be necessary, for example. These things would have to be worked out.
Mr. Johnston: No doubt there have been negotiations, or at least consultations, with those provinces up to this point. I understand that the indications from those provinces are favourable.
Mr. Gagliano: The indications from all the provinces are favourable. They are anxious to start the negotiations for the transfer. The regulations can be written, the transfer can take place.
I might add that all the stakeholders were consulted before the actual bill was tabled in the House.
Mr. Johnston: Certainly it goes along with my party's belief that duplication and overlap should be done away with wherever possible.
From our point of view, the devolution of powers down to the most applicable level of government certainly makes sense, too.
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Having gone through this bill several times, I believe that this is fairly straightforward legislation.
I understand Mr. Ménard's concern about the regulations, and I wonder out loud, I suppose, if there isn't some way in which that could be accommodated in the bill so that regulations would be negotiated with the provinces. I wonder if that would solve the problem, because all legislators know that administrators sometimes do things that we don't like.
I assume that if you negotiated with the Government of Quebec then you could negotiate with the Governments of Ontario and New Brunswick that these things will be.... The assumption is that they will be done prior to these regulations being implemented.
Is there some way in which we can overcome the concerns of a member who also says that the minister has problems with that specific item?
Mr. Gagliano: I don't know if the amendment Mr. Ménard is talking about is the same as the one proposed by the Quebec government. We're ready to look at it to see.
Naturally, as I said, our purpose here is to have this mechanism so that as soon as possible we can move to transfer the jurisdictions to the province. We will do everything we can. Therefore we're ready to work with anybody who wants to work with us.
Mr. Proud: I thank the minister. The idea of this bill is to do these things, to get rid of a lot of duplication and doing of things that we don't need to be doing. We talk about this in the House of Commons every day. Every political speech is made up with it. This is proof that we're prepared to do this, so I think that can be overcome very easily.
The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, you might want to inform us of when your amendment might be ready for the minister and the officials to look at. Of course you do not have to do that now. If you would like time, you have some more minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I do not want this to be deducted from the time I have to speak with the minister, but I was wondering if the sub-committee would like to have an intensive session with witnesses?
I think the minister wanted to have this bill passed before April 1st, and I think that is imperative, even though a labour contract was renewed for two months. As long as we agree on a mechanism, there won't be any stalling tactics.
.0935
However, I think the sub-committee should plan some intensive hearings. Perhaps we should set aside a day to hear various witnesses, people from Quebec, people from Ontario, and perhaps people from New Brunswick as well. It would be good for us to hear witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, you are not listening.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I am. I expect that after the meeting here, after the minister and the officials leave us, we'll have a meeting on future business and we'll discuss the need and agreement, or not, for witnesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I have three questions for the minister. Let's assume the bill is passed without amendment. Under your proposal, if a province makes a request, you will not be dealing with a third party, that is the managers of each of the four undertakings involved. If your counterpart from Quebec, Ontario or New Brunswick says he wants the regulations to be enforced on his territory, then there will be a negotiating process. Is that correct?
Mr. Edmondson: Yes.
Mr. Ménard: In that case, you would be willing to have provisions whereby it would be up to your provincial counterpart to outline the regulatory framework for that province.
Mr. Gagliano: If the affected province wants to suggest a regulatory framework to us, we would be willing to consider it. We are ready to negotiate and we will make sure everything is in order and that the transfer is carried out in accordance with accepted standards and rules as well as within the intent of the law. The intent of the law is to transfer any legislation, power or jurisdiction pertaining to labour laws in nuclear plants. So there really isn't any problem.
Mr. Ménard: But Mr. Minister, your resorting to a regulatory framework means that you would not want a specific province to be mentioned in the act and that you want to have a mechanism that is flexible enough to be applied nationally.
Mr. Gagliano: Well, you made the point correctly in your first question. The request would come from the provinces because we would be transferring a federal legislative power to the provinces. So the request could not come from the union, from Hydro Ontario or from Hydro Quebec. The request must be made by the province because the measure would involve transferring a federal jurisdiction to a province.
Therefore, this bill must be passed. Let's take the example of mines coming under Saskatchewan's atomic energy. If I don't get a request from the province of Saskatchewan, then...
Since Quebec is asking for it, if the bill is passed, the jurisdiction will immediately be transferred. However, I don't think the aim will be achieved by that. There could be some confusion, and the province might say it is not ready for the transfer. What will we do then? The transfer is provided for in the legislation.
Mr. Ménard: That is what I do not understand, Mr. Minister. Right now, we are talking about four provinces, mainly two representing 70% of the workers. How does specific reference to Quebec provincial laws impede you from doing what you want with the other three provinces?
Mr. Gagliano: In a case like that, I don't think it would involve many provinces. Why mention just one province and not all of them? We would be able to negotiate with every province if we had comprehensive framework legislation, which could provide the mechanism to trigger the transfer. The situation may vary from one province to another.
In fact, they are all different, except in Quebec and New Brunswick. In Ontario, 9,000 employees would be affected, whereas in Quebec, there would be 500, and in New Brunswick, 450.
Mr. Ménard: Five hundred in Quebec?
Mr. Gagliano: I don't know...
Mr. Ménard: I was told there would be 6,000 in Ontario, but I would not bet a beer on it. Basically, it is important to recognize that the province of Quebec wants a transfer, because no one in the province likes the idea of a regulatory framework. Your officials and I met with Louis Champagne, president of the Syndicat professionnel des ingénieurs d'Hydro-Québec, who will no doubt appear before you. Retroceding powers through a regulatory framework, rather than between Parliaments, by mutual agreement, is a totally ludicrous idea.
.0940
I presume we will have the opportunity to discuss this again. I have two other questions for you. Could you expand on the bargaining agent's position? According to your introduction, the bargaining agent would keep his position. Am I to understand that he will keep the certification under Part I of the Labour Code?
Mr. Gagliano: No. The bargaining agent who negotiates when the transfer occurs keeps his job. The transfer is granted. Just because the jurisdiction was transferred does not mean other bargaining agents or other unions can ask for certification. We guarantee successor rights. The transfer must not be made precipitously. The signed agreement will remain in effect until its expiry date. So, if the bargaining agent was certified, he will continue to be until the end of the collective agreement. Under provincial laws, any change must be made once the collective agreement is expired.
Mr. Ménard: So, you want to protect yourself from raiding. We agree that the incumbent bargaining agent...
Mr. Gagliano: We would like to revert back to the situation we had prior to 1993.
Mr. Ménard: Especially since you will want to save your energy for CBC, if you have been following the news like I have, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Gagliano: As Labour Minister, I would like there be negotiations. I do not have any problem with that.
Mr. Ménard: I have two other questions. If this bill were passed, what would be Atomic Energy of Canada's mandate? What would the situation be at Hydro Ontario? Have you received official confirmation that the labour contract would be renewed, or are you still worried that there may be a mandate to strike? Do you think Ontario Hydro workers may still go on strike around April 1st?
Mr. Gagliano: No. We recently learned that the labour contracts have been extended until May 31. Therefore, it seems that there won't be any strike before then. A vote was to be held on the issue and, if everything proves to be satisfactory, there will be no possibility of a strike before May 31.
Mr. Ménard: If the committee continued its work and the bill was not passed as of May 31, and I know you would be very unhappy about that but you have to consider the possibility, you might have to introduce special legislation to deal with any possible labour dispute at Ontario Hydro.
Mr. Gagliano: As they say, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Mr. Ménard: That was what Claude Ryan used to say.
Mr. Gagliano: We will look at the situation. As far as we are concerned, a labour dispute would create a very complex situation. We would be dealing with two pieces of legislation. Forty-two percent of Ontario Hydro employees would be subject to the Canada Labour Code and 58% to the Ontario legislation. Therefore, we would have to look at the situation, but because of the particular character of the industry, we would probably have to consider the advisability of passing special legislation.
[English]
The Chairman: We have to move on now to the Reform Party.
Mr. Johnston: I had contemplated making some remarks about the fact that the Supreme Court decision was in 1993 and we're now in 1996, but I won't make any remarks about the delay, Mr. Chairman.
As I said before, I like the direction this bill takes us in, with elimination of duplication and overlap and the devolution of powers. Maybe I should ask if this is a new direction or a direction we can count on this government to take in the future. We'd certainly encourage them to do that if they're so inclined.
.0945
Secondly, will enactment of this bill have any costs for the Canadian taxpayer?
Mr. Gagliano: About costs I'll ask Warren to answer, but let me answer the political questions.
This is a unique situation. It was started after the judgment of the Supreme Court. We're dealing with a unique situation. But on the political question you ask about the intention of the government, it was clearly indicated in the Speech from the Throne that we are looking to negotiate with the provinces. Our objective is that whatever will best serve the citizens is the level of jurisdiction that should be given the authority.
Mr. Johnston: The costs?
Mr. Edmondson: It's difficult to say at the moment. I don't have any actual numbers for you, Mr. Johnston. Obviously what happened with the Supreme Court decision...that decision placed in the lap of the federal government a responsibility it didn't have previously, for example for inspecting from an occupational safety and health point of view and from a labour standards point of view. That decision generated some costs for us. I don't have the exact numbers. Of course through the regulatory process of working out the future framework with the respective provinces, I'm sure there will be some interesting negotiations between the provinces and the federal government on how these costs will be shared and on ensuring protection of workers continues in the transferring of active responsibility back to the provinces.
The Chairman: Do we have any following question from the government side?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to Mr. Ménard. I know he had a lot of questions. We can definitely continue discussions, but if after the committee has heard witnesses or other things and you want me to come back, I'll do the best I can to be here as soon as possible. I apologize again for the pressure of time.
The Chairman: Fine.
Thank you very much for appearing, Mr. Minister and officials.
We'll take a five-minute break, then go in camera for a few minutes as we discuss future business.
.0948
.0955
The Chairman: We'll now proceed with our future business part of the meeting. We've had correspondence and requests from two groups to appear as witnesses. The clerk has received a request from the Power Workers Union. Their headquarters, their legal department, is in Toronto, Ontario. There has also been a request from the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees, which also is in Toronto.
Mr. Ménard: I missed the information. Would you repeat it, please?
The Chairman: At this time two witnesses have requested to appear. One is the Power Workers Union of Ontario - it doesn't say ``Ontario'', but I expect that it is the Ontario part of it - from Toronto. The other is the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees, also from Ontario.
Some people have said that it might not be necessary to have witnesses. I want to open up for discussion the question of whether we should or should not have witnesses.
Mr. Ménard says yes.
Would you like to speak to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there are 50 witnesses. Perhaps we could devote a full day to that. If the government so wished, I would be ready to cooperate on the hearing of witnesses. The Official Opposition could submit a list of witnesses to the clerk by the end of this week or by Monday at the latest.
To be fair and because it is the right of the various stakeholders, I would very much hope that these witnesses would be allowed to appear. If the government so wished, we would be ready to cooperate and concentrate the hearings within one single day so as to avoid unduly prolonging the work of the committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Johnston, would you like to speak on the issue of witnesses appearing?
Mr. Johnston: I don't believe we will be recommending any witnesses on this particular bill.
Mr. Proud: I don't know what witnesses can tell us, but that's fair enough. I'm prepared to have one day. If we can make a motion, or whatever we have to do, to have one day of witnesses and after that we would go to clause-by-clause consideration, or whatever the case may be, and go from there, then I am prepared to live with that.
The Chairman: I will ask the clerk if we need a motion that we shall submit to the clerk between now and Monday noon the names to be considered.
.1000
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: At noon?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. Do we have agreement on that?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, have you or any of the people working with the Minister been in contact with New Brunswick? Without wishing to add to the already very heavy workload of our clerk, could we not ask him to ensure that this information is given to the workers concerned in New Brunswick? I think we should ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to express their views.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard. I'm sure Mr. Proud heard we will make sure New Brunswick and each of the provinces has heard this request. They've all been contacted.
Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the committee seems to be agreeable to going this route and hearing from witnesses. When you consider that at the current moment 90% of the employees in question reside in the province of Ontario and that there has been the threat of a strike in that sector of the economy, to do with Ontario Hydro, for the federal government to suggest we don't want to hear from them when they're watching other colleagues in other unions on the picket line and when they are experiencing a fairly new government - and I believe they are fearful of that new government - I think it's important for them to have a chance to tell us what they think about this legislation and to have a sense that the federal government is with them, and I believe a day of hearings will provide that opportunity. But certainly with 90% of the workers in the province of Ontario we would be very remiss not to hear from them. So I enthusiastically applaud this initiative.
Mr. Proud: I have no problem with that. I just want to make it clear that the idea of this bill is not for us to be negotiating contracts for other power corporations. What we're doing is giving back to the province the authority to do the things that were deemed to be our responsibility...the nuclear facilities, under a Supreme Court judgment. That's all.
The Chairman: So I take it we have agreement -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We could ask the clerk to inquire whether Atomic Energy of Canada wished to appear. The Minister was clear with respect to its responsibility in the area of radiation safety. Could we check to see whether Atomic Energy of Canada wishes to appear at the hearings to be held that day?
[English]
The Chairman: We can certainly ask the clerk that.
The Clerk: No.
The Chairman: We can ask the clerk and ask the government if they would consider checking with Atomic Energy of Canada; AECL.
Mr. Proud: Was anybody there? Madam Beaupré? She was with Atomic Energy of Canada.
The Chairman: Legal counsel?
Mr. Proud: Legal counsel.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We could ask management officials if they wish to appear.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll do that. We'll check with AECL.
Do we have agreement around the table, then, that your requests have to be finalized and in for the clerk by Monday noon?
Mr. Johnston: Yes.
The Chairman: Then we'll probably meet Tuesday to go over that list and any future business. We won't have the witnesses until at least later next week, it would seem.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Would you like us to meet on Tuesday after question period?
[English]
The Chairman: The clerk will send you a notice, but possibly we will meet on Tuesday at3:30 p.m.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: As you know, my party makes me work very hard. I'm considering joining a union. There are two committees on Tuesday morning which I have to attend. Tuesday afternoon would be easier.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sure we're all very busy, but we'll certainly get the notice from the clerk. We'll try for that time slot if it's possible.
Ms Brown: Mr. Chairman, if you don't decide until Tuesday who is on the list we're going to invite, is that giving people enough time to appear on, say, Thursday?
The Chairman: I'd like to meet Tuesday morning, if I have my way.
Ms Brown: Does it take a whole weekend to get a list? Why couldn't we get the list by noon on Friday? Then invitations would be issued on Monday.
Mr. Ménard: Tomorrow.
The Chairman: Okay, great. We have agreement that the list will be finalized and in for the clerk tomorrow.
.1005
Mr. Johnston: I won't be here on Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, so the agenda for Tuesday will be...?
The Chairman: Tuesday we're going to meet to look at this list, determine who the witnesses will be, hopefully by mutual agreement, and hear from the clerk when that might happen.
Mr. Johnston: I'll arrange for an alternate.
The Chairman: Okay.
Do we have any other future business?
So tentatively we're looking at meeting on Tuesday morning, but we'll -
Mr. Proud: Why can't we meet on Monday?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: That's the day when I visit my constituency.
[English]
Mr. Proud: We all fought on that issue at another committee yesterday, to see if we could have Mondays, but we couldn't. Are you here on Monday afternoons? Do you come to town on Monday afternoons?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: No. I take the train at 7:00 a.m. and arrive here at 9:00 a.m. I first have to sit on the Human Rights Committee and then the Industry Committee. It would be possible after question period.
[English]
Ms Brown: Are you here tomorrow?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Yes.
[English]
Ms Brown: Just a minute. He's here tomorrow. If the list has to be in by noon, why couldn't we meet tomorrow? Then -
The Chairman: I'm here tomorrow.
Mr. Proud: I'm not. I can send somebody else.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We could have met tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., before question period, but Mr. Proud will not be there.
[English]
Mr. Proud: I'm not going to be here.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: If we meet on Tuesday, I think we will have two or three witnesses. I will submit the list to the clerk this afternoon or tomorrow. It is not complicated.
[English]
Mr. Proud: Tuesday morning.
The Chairman: Tuesday morning?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: No! I have two committees on Tuesday morning.
[English]
Tuesday, after Question Period.
The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, the list you're going to present to the clerk for us to consider: do you expect this list will have only two or three names? Is that what you said?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I can tell you that we will have only three names.
[English]
The Chairman: I expect, then, that we can meet on Tuesday morning, and if it's only three names you'll have a fair possibility that we're going to listen to one or two of those names, and possibly three. We have two other names here now. I understand the government may have a couple of groups. We may have that list available for the clerk tomorrow so he can start tentatively contacting these people. I think we're working towards agreement on this.
Mr. Proud: You could do it tomorrow, if you wish. I can get somebody else to come in my place if you want to do it that way.
The Chairman: It sounds as if we have agreement. If there are only three names there, two names now and two more, we can go with them all.
Ms Brown: We have time to hear them all.
Mr. Proud: We'll have hearings on Thursday.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I am counting on you to accept the names to be submitted.
[English]
The Chairman: It sounds as if now we have agreement. If you present three names for the Bloc, the two union ones we have from Ontario and three names for the government, we'll hear all eight groups. So at the moment no one will be shut out.
Mr. Proud: Okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Yes of course.
[English]
The Chairman: So we have those eight names. We can leave it with the clerk. We need to submit these to the clerk by tomorrow. We will await the clerk's calling the witnesses, which may be as early, we hope, as this coming Thursday.
Any other future business at this time?
Mr. Johnston: So we're not meeting on Tuesday.
The Chairman: I don't think we need to, Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: Good.
Mr. Proud: We may conclude the hearings by then.
The Chairman: I doubt it, Mr. Proud. I'm asking, but if we could do it by Thursday and have them all and then wrap it up, it would perhaps not be quite as ambitious -
Mr. Proud: Okay, fair enough.
The Chairman: Any last-minute...?
The meeting is adjourned.