[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.1533 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call this meeting to order.
As you know, we are here to study Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, part I, and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This afternoon we have the pleasure to have a representative, Mr. Grant Mebs, from the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association.
Mr. Mebs, on behalf of the committee I would like to welcome you. You may begin.
Mr. Grant Mebs (President and Chief Executive Officer, Waterfront Foremen Employers Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to be here, and I extend my thanks and appreciation on behalf of my members, and frankly on behalf of those of us on the west coast. I can appreciate the busy schedule that the committee has, and that all the members of this particular standing committee have, and I appreciate the opportunity to meet and appear before you today.
I presented for you, and I hope you have distributed, a copy of the brief. I'm going to refer specifically to that brief in my comments and dissertation today. Following my recitation of the brief, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
By way of introduction, the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association would again like to extend our appreciation to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development for the opportunity to appear before it to present our members' serious concerns with respect to Bill C-66 as it is currently drafted.
.1535
At the outset, the association wishes to make it clear that several of the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-66 bear little resemblance to consensus reached through the consultation process or to recommendations made by the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the Sims task force, both of which were appointed pursuant to legislative decree.
Our members are extremely concerned that the speed with which the government is moving to enact this proposed legislation may have extremely grievous results, particularly in those instances where the provisional wording has not been carefully thought out, and if passed, would have serious unintended consequences. Simply put, there are significant shortcomings in many provisions of the bill, some related to form and others to substance, which have not had the benefit of analysis, input and discussion by concerned federally regulated employers and unions.
If Bill C-66 as worded is passed without a thorough review by those who will be directly, or in our submission, seriously affected, the opportunity to correct unintended consequences and to improve legislation on the whole will effectively be lost.
It is, in our view, unrealistic to expect that all of the significant parties who will be affected by this legislation will have had sufficient time to review, consider and form a concise, well-researched response to the legislation as proposed. With respect, the legislation was introduced on November 4, 1996, by the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano and was only available to all parties subsequent to that time. It is simply unrealistic to expect the major employers, unions and industry stakeholders who participated in the extensive consultation process to review the draft legislation, to consider the impact of this legislation, and then to present submissions to this committee in the extremely short timeframe provided.
We urge this committee in the strongest terms to re-evaluate the short timeframe to review this proposed legislation, and to urge the minister to extend the period for submissions and dialogue on this proposed legislation.
Our submission on Bill C-66 will begin with an introduction to the association. It will then review our involvement in the consultation process to date, and will follow with a brief analysis of the major shortcomings in the bill with which our members have serious concerns.
The Waterfront Foremen Employers Association is an unaccredited employers' association consisting of sixteen individually certified member companies. The association's members employ foremen who are members of the ILWU, Local 514, at all major west coast ports.
Following the certification of Local 514 to each of our members operating in the west coast ports, the WFEA was formed to coordinate collective bargaining. The association, which is constituted under the Societies Act of B.C., is governed by a board of directors who administer its constitution and by-laws. Under the constitution and by-laws of the association, it's empowered to negotiate a common collective agreement for all of its constituent members.
In addition to its collective bargaining responsibilities, the staff of the association interacts on a daily basis with its member companies, the union, and governmental and regulatory agencies. The association represents its members' interests on matters relating to health and safety, pension, health and welfare benefits, labour relations and legislative reform.
The association's membership, it's meaningful to note, consists of the following constituent groups. One is stevedoring companies, the operations of which pertain to the transfer of commodities, one of which is grain - and I'll speak at some length about that today - from ship to the first place of rest on the dock and vice versa. Stevedoring companies provide the labour and equipment required to perform this transfer of goods. There are six stevedore members of the association.
General terminal and coastwise class operators are the owners and operators of wharves or other shore-based facilities directly connected with vessel loading or unloading. The term ``general'' refers to wharves or docks that handle general cargoes such as lumber, pulp, containers, steel, etc. The services these operators provide include labour, equipment, and storage facilities for the receiving, warehousing and delivery of cargo to or from vessels via trucks or rail. There are six members of this class.
The third class of the association is the bulk terminal operators. They are the owners or operators of wharves or shore-based facilities whose primary operation is the handling of bulk cargoes such as pulp, paper, coal, potash, mineral concentrates, wood chips, sulphur and bulk liquid cargoes. There are four bulk terminal operators within this class.
.1540
The foremen, individually employed by the various WFEA member companies and collectively represented by Local 514, supervise employees dispatched under the BCMEA/ILWU collective agreement. That agreement covers terms and conditions of employment of longshore labour represented by a number of locals of the ILWU.
To set out the association's involvement in the consultation and legislative reform process to date, we commence in early 1995, when the west coast ports were legally struck by the ILWU ship and dock foremen. The resulting work stoppage was resolved by the passing of the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995. This work disruption occurred within twelve months of a work stoppage by the ILWU Canadian area, the longshoremen, with the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association.
The then Minister of Labour, Madame Robillard, appointed the Industrial Inquiry Commission into Industrial Relations at West Coast Ports, amongst other things, to examine and make recommendations on any legislative amendments or industrial relations practices which would encourage effective and stable labour relations between labour and management, and to reduce the incidence of coastwide work stoppages and their related economic impact. In June 1995 the minister also appointed the Sims task force for review of part I of the Canada Labour Code.
The association, on behalf of its members, participated by appearing before both of these bodies and presenting full written submissions suggesting amendments to the code in line with their respective mandates. The association appeared before the Industrial Inquiry Commission on a number of occasions, commencing on August 20, 1995, and before the Sims task force on October 26, 1995. In addition, following release of the findings and recommendations of both the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the Sims task force, the association appeared before the minister at round table discussions held in Vancouver in April 1996.
In our view the government to this point has properly proceeded on the basis of careful analysis, thorough examination, and active stakeholder participation in revision of part I of the code. This has resulted in the drafting of Bill C-66. Now, however, the government has fast-tracked the process, such that a thorough review of the provisions as drafted will not occur, despite several shortcomings.
Before outlining our members' concerns about particular provisions of the legislation, we again implore this committee to request additional time from the minister to review more carefully each and every controversial provision of the bill to ensure unintended consequences as a result of legislative wording, in both form and substance, are avoided. Furthermore, as the Canada Labour Code has not undergone a comprehensive review since the 1970s, the amendments as proposed in the draft legislation should be carefully examined to ensure they accurately reflect items agreed to through the consultation process and the recommendations as contained in both the Industrial Inquiry Commission report and the Sims task force report. It would not serve anyone's interest, including the government's, to finish hastily what has been so thoroughly and carefully undertaken to date.
The association has concerns about the provisions of Bill C-66. Given that this legislation was tabled November 4, 1996 and the standing committee was struck immediately thereafter, the association regrets it has not had ample opportunity to review the provisions of the bill carefully and thoroughly with its membership. Nonetheless, several areas apparent on a cursory review of the legislation are of concern to the association's members and we wish to bring them to the committee's attention at this time. We do reiterate, however, that ample time has not been provided to review Bill C-66 thoroughly.
I will deal first with clause 37 of Bill C-66, which is intended to amend section 87 of the code by the addition of proposed subsection 87.7(1), which deals with the continuous movement of grain vessels.
Bill C-66 proposes that employers in the longshoring industry and their employees be required to provide services to ensure the loading and movement of grain vessels in and out of Canadian ports during work disruptions. The association, on behalf of its members, strongly opposes the substance and purpose of this proposed amendment. Its immediate effect is to place the many and varied commodities our members move through the port in opposition to one another.
.1545
Our view is that no one commodity should have preferential legislative treatment over another. We question why the proposed legislation would favour the movement of grain through the ports during a labour disruption as opposed to other commodities, such as coal, potash, sulphur, bulk liquids, forest products and container cargoes. This is especially so where grain accounts for no more than, at most, 35% of all cargo and commodities moving through the west coast ports. If you include all commodities such as coal generally at the west coast ports, that percentage drops down to about 22%. That's 16 million tonnes of grain as opposed to 74 million tonnes of general cargo.
In our view, the volume throughput of grain at the west coast ports, as compared to these other commodities, simply does not warrant special legislative treatment as a solution to export disruptions. Special treatment for one commodity group over another is clearly a discriminatory practice that is unacceptable to our members. To suggest that one commodity group is deserving of preferential economic protection in the event of a labour dispute is unacceptable and discriminatory.
Furthermore, to separate grain from all other specific individual commodity interests is an invitation for other groups to seek similar legislative preference. One can only imagine the strenuous lobbying efforts by other commodity groups, such as the forest products sector, if preferential treatment under the legislation for grain is passed into law.
There is, in our view, no labour relations purpose to the preferential treatment of grain. The only obvious purpose is either economic or political and in that event would invite vigorous lobbying on behalf of those not included in the prohibition against work stoppages.
The purpose of the review of the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the Sims task force was, amongst other things, to identify options and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for legislative change with a view to improving collective bargaining and reducing conflict, facilitating labour-management cooperation, reducing the incidence of coast-wide work stoppages and their related impact.
In our submission, Bill C-66, as it relates to the prohibition against work stoppages involving longshore labour operations, falls far short of what was intended by those two commissions. The legislation provides a prohibition against work stoppages involving port operations including longshore operations and excludes, by definition, other operations such as the rail operations and the grain terminal operations. As a result, the legislation's intent to prohibit the disruption of grain exports is simply not achieved. Therefore, the legislation is inherently flawed and discriminatory in that it does not, by definition, guarantee that grain exports will continue unaffected by work stoppages.
I digress here by giving you examples of the work stoppages between the longshore operations and those that affected grain that were not involved in longshore operations over the past 10 years. In the past ten years since 1986, there has been a total of 25 days of work stoppage directly attributable to the west coast ports and longshoring operations. In 1996, in unrelated work stoppages that had the effect of stopping grain, there was a total of 91 work stoppage days. When you compare the two and the effects of the imposing legislation, it is simply not relevant to suspect that prohibiting longshore operations from shutting down the grain operations will resolve and provide for the free flow of grain exports.
Finally, even as currently drafted, it is unclear whether this provision applies to container grain loaded aboard non-grain vessels. Currently, approximately 28% of all export containers leaving the port of Vancouver are filled with specialty grain. These vessels, moving containers, are non-grain vessels.
Container traffic volume at the west coast ports is forecast to increase substantially over the next few years as new terminals are brought on line. This will effectively magnify the inequity created by this legislation if it's proclaimed. As presently drafted, the provision fails to distinguish between grain moved via grain vessels and the grain system as opposed to grain moved through containers. This, of course, results in not only discriminatory treatment of grain in respect to other commodities, but also to types of grain. For these reasons the association submits that this provision should be deleted from Bill C-66.
.1550
Subclause 27(1) of Bill C-66, which amends paragraph 60(1)(a) of the code dealing with the powers of the arbitrator, clothes arbitrators with several powers, the purpose of which is to more easily and efficiently arbitrate grievances.
The association, however, has serious concerns about the scope of these powers as currently defined in the proposed legislation. For example, proposed paragraph 60(1)(a.1) of the bill clothes arbitrators with ``the power to determine the nature of the difference and address its real substance.''
The association is concerned that this is far too broad a power to bestow upon arbitrators and will permit, and in fact encourage, a questioning and an analysis of issues beyond the scope of the particular grievance before the arbitration board. In many cases it will permit the parties to expand and alter grievances where they would normally be held to the four corners of the grievance as filed.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Mebs. I notice you're reading directly from the text of the brief. Is it possible for us to read your brief into the record and allow the remaining 10 minutes to 15 minutes to be allocated for the question and answer session? Would you mind that?
Mr. Mebs: Not at all.
The Chairman: Finish off this section here and then we'll move to the question and answer session.
Mr. Mebs: Furthermore, this power may conflict with collection agreement language that specifically states an arbitrator has no jurisdiction to render a decision on any matter not properly before it, in the nature of a defined grievance.
Similarly our members are concerned with proposed paragraph 60(1)(a.2) where an arbitrator has ``the power to interpret, apply and give relief in accordance with a statute relating to employment matters''. This effectively means that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to apply relief under any federal act related to employment, such as the Human Rights Act, the Employment Equity Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and their regulations.
In our view, this is far too broad a power to bestow upon arbitrators and it goes further than most provincial legislation, which simply gives arbitrators the power to apply employment statutes in a resolution of a grievance within the context of the terms of the agreement.
This proposed amendment goes much further by allowing an arbitrator to administer other acts and the specific remedies contained therein. Where the parties themselves bestow such jurisdiction upon an arbitrator, they are bound by the effects of the exercise of that jurisdiction. However, for this legislation to expand an arbitrator's jurisdiction beyond that agreed to by the parties visits unintended consequences upon the parties and is therefore unacceptable and inappropriate.
In addition, our membership is concerned with the power to extend time limits granted to arbitrators under proposed subsection 60(2)(1.1) where he or she
- is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the extension and that the other party would not
be unduly prejudiced by the extension.
These time limits are incorporated into collective agreements to ensure that there is efficient processing of grievances and their final resolution. To permit an arbitrator to extend time limits effectively undermines those collective agreements where time limits are incorporated into the grievance procedure, and that renders them meaningless. For these reasons, our membership is of the view that arbitrators should not be granted this power.
Most of these powers outlined in the proposed legislation are dealt with within the provisions of a collective agreement, and consideration should be given to only permitting the exercise of statutory powers conferred upon arbitrators where they do not conflict with provisions of a collective agreement clearly dealing with these issues. In this way the parties are ensured of the integrity of their existing negotiated provisions within these collective agreements.
It's important to note that none of those changes with respect to the powers of the arbitrator were discussed or raised in any of the consultation process. These are new and were never reviewed. There is absolutely, in my opinion and certainly to my reading of all the legislation and all of the arbitral jurisprudence, no specific issue or no specific problem that has been raised with respect to those provisions, such that it would warrant this kind of legislative amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mebs.
.1555
For the record, the presentation made by the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association, starting on page 13, where it mentions subclause 42(1) of Bill C-66, to page 19, ending with ``all of which is respectfully submitted, Waterfront Foremen Employers Association'', will be read into the record as the presentation.
Now we'll move on to the questions and answers with Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Since we don't have a lot of time, I'm going to get right to the point.
You oppose the proposed sub-section 87.7(1) of the Canada Labour Code, which provides for the continuation of service in the grain industry. I would like to understand your position. Would you like all industries, such as the potash industry, to be subject to this no-strike and no-lockout clause, or would you like only the grain industry to be subject to this prohibition?
[English]
Mr. Mebs: Our position is that grain as a commodity holds no priority position with respect to any protective measures by legislation. We appreciate the economic impact of grain flowing through the ports of the west coast. We appreciate the ancillary jobs and economic benefits of grain flowing through the west coast ports. We also appreciate all of the other commodities and their ancillary benefits, economic and otherwise, that are flowing through the west coast ports.
During our discussions with the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the Sims task force, the Industrial Inquiry Commission in particular recognized the nature of the conflict when you start pitting one commodity against another.
One of their recommendations was to include a provision in the code that allowed the minister to intercede and move the dispute into one of several different options for resolution prior to or shortly after any kind of work stoppage that affected grain or any west coast port operation. In our view, that was a far more sensible approach rather than that of providing single discriminatory protective measures for one commodity over another.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You haven't answered my question. If you had a choice, would you prefer that sub-section 87.7(1) stipulate that the grain industry not have a no-strike and no-lockout clause, or would you prefer that all industries be subject to this same prohibition?
[English]
Mr. Mebs: My view is that grain should not have a prohibition. It should be treated exactly the same as all others, so there should be no prohibition against grain, or against other commodities as well. The parties are free to negotiate their collective agreements and deal with their work stoppages in a responsible way. In my view, this tips the balance of one commodity over the others.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde. Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): I would like to hear your general opinion of the bill. Do you believe that the government has obtained the balance that it claims it has attained. If you had to tell us what to do as the Official Opposition, would you want us to oppose passage of the bill? I know that you have at least three major amendments to make, particularly regarding the arbitrator's powers and your concern regarding the interpretation of related statutes.
So far, the harshest criticism has come from the union movement. You represent an employers' association and you appear to be extremely critical of the bill. So do you want us to pass it? If the government does not retain your amendments, would you want the bill not be passed?
[English]
Mr. Mebs: I would prefer to have the bill as it's currently drafted not adopted, mostly for the reasons we set out in our draft. And they are not exhaustive. The Sims task force drafted proposed changes - or at least set out suggestions for proposed changes - to part I of the code. That report generally had the consensus of the significant parties that were involved in the consultation process.
Our concern with this legislation is that in areas it goes beyond the Sims report and beyond the consensus. It clearly goes beyond areas that were even discussed or part of the general review of part I of the Canada Labour Code, and in other areas, the drafting, potentially just in substance and potentially in form, is in error or is flawed.
.1600
And we need more time to be able to provide information and submissions to committees such as this one to find out whether the errors in drafting were unintended and, if so, if they can be corrected without a great deal of difficulty. But if in fact the changes as we understand them were intended, we have grave concerns about where the impetus of these changes in the legislation came from.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Thank you.
First, I'd like to congratulate you on a very good presentation, especially on highlighting the concerns that your organization has with the proposed new law.
When you specifically mentioned the grain handling, it did ring a very resonant bell. One of the reasons it rings a very resonant bell is that for nineteen of the last twenty years grain handlers have had to be legislated back to work. So it would appear that the grain transportation has been targeted by the other side. That could be a reason why it has attracted this attention.
Grain as a commodity touches the lives of so many people. And it happens with such regularity that the people have to be legislated back to work. Why, then, would this legislation not be written so as to protect the grain industry? And the corollary is that if grain is obviously targeted by the unions, for whatever reason, should there not be accompanying legislation, then, for final arbitration settlement so that we don't have the stoppage?
It's kind of like a Solomon thing: here's a chocolate bar, kids, which we're going to cut in half, and whoever cuts gets a second choice, and then just get on with it... I think it's entirely reasonable that the grain industry is protected because the grain industry has been attacked or it has been targeted.
Mr. Mebs: I don't dispute that grain has been seen to be the hot button for probably a multitude of reasons. As a single commodity, it seems to get much more attention than other commodities. There is a multitude of reasons for that, one of which is, as you say, that it touches the lives of so many people across the country. And I'm not suggesting that other commodities don't touch the lives of people all across this country as well.
Our concern with the process, as it was outlined during both the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the Sims report, was that it wasn't so much the commodity or the behaviour of the parties, notwithstanding the work stoppages, that was the problem. The problem was the process, which never allowed you to get to a position of resolution without raising the profile to the extent of a work stoppage.
Now suddenly it's not the parties involved. It's generally the Government of Canada and all those other stakeholders. To remove that particular dispute out of the arena, it was our submission that we supported the view of a dispute resolution mechanism that would avoid those kinds of confrontations leading to a strike.
Let me speak briefly about final-offer selection. Although it is an attractive option, it is not a panacea. As companies for grain and other commodity groups move into a global economy, things are far more complicated. Changes are necessary just to compete in the open market and the changes that are often found at the bargaining table are far more complex than can be decided with a yes or a no.
Final-offer selection works fine if the dispute between the parties rests with something fairly simple and poignant, such as money. If there's a nickel or a dollar between the offers, somebody's going to find what's equitable in terms of the money. But if one is deciding or leaving one's fate in the hands of a third party who will decide whether one can evoke the changes with respect to one's business that are needed for competition, it's far more complicated than picking one side's position over another.
So although we favour a dispute resolution mechanism that would preclude work stoppages for grain and all other commodities that are important to Canada, that particular option apparently wasn't favourable to the government. Their view was to give preferential treatment to grain. We oppose that because, frankly, it becomes a discriminatory practice.
Mr. McClelland: It makes it even more of a flashpoint.
Mr. Mebs: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McClelland. Mr. Nault.
.1605
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mebs, I think you're aware that also, as part of the changes to the code, there's a clause that deals with the ability for you to enter into an agreement to go into final-offer arbitration, if it's your wish, and to put it right in your collective agreements. What's your opinion of that, because that is basically what you're suggesting you'd like to have, versus grain being exempt, as an example?
Mr. Mebs: If the legislation were amended so the parties have the opportunity to put into their collective agreement a dispute resolution mechanism dealing with their activities, without having the provision as currently drafted in the code, I suppose that might be one resolution, but that clearly is not the way the legislation is drafted at this stage.
As I indicated, final-offer selection is but one method of dealing with labour disputes. It is not a panacea and it is not appropriate for every type of dispute.
Mr. Nault: No, but in proposed subsections 79(1) and 79(2) it says the parties may include a requirement in their collective agreement or in a separate agreement that issues in dispute be submitted to binding settlement, which gives you the flexibility to create a situation in areas where you feel there are some problems. Why is it not possible for the two parties to get together to deal with those issues that you seem to go on strike on a regular basis for?
Mr. Mebs: If I had the answer to that question, we probably would never find ourselves in the situation of going into a dispute. That's a wonderful opportunity, but it requires both parties to agree.
Mr. Nault: Let me see if I can ask it a different way. What choice do legislators have? As you say, the best position we could take is that both sides should be allowed to work out their differences, but it seems to me on the west coast that doesn't happen very often. What has happened now is that the inability of both sides to come to some sort of consensus on how to do business has caused a major disruption to the economy of the nation.
So what choice are you leaving the government of the day and/or legislators in general if in fact you can't come up with a solution for us that is going to rectify that very difficult issue for all of us? We can't have you on strike every couple of years.
You're saying you don't want arbitrators, but you end up with an arbitrator every time, it seems to me. If I were to count how many times you had an arbitrator in the last 20 years, I think it would take more than the fingers on my hands.
Give me some guidance here as to what you're asking for. On the one hand you're telling us what you don't like, but you're not solving your problem, which is that you seem to find it very difficult to come to consensus with the working groups.
Mr. Mebs: Well, first of all, let me say it wasn't a matter of the parties not trying to solve their problems. One of the manifestations of parties exercising their rights under the terms of the agreement is, from time to time, work stoppages.
We understand and fully appreciate the effects of work stoppages and that they are not in the best interests of the economy of Canada. We had suggested that prior to that happening, the government recommend a method of dispute resolution appropriate to the nature of the dispute.
With respect to arbitrators, it was never the parties' wish to have an arbitrator. If you go back to the legislation that returned parties to work and included rail, grain and every other major industry, you'll find that was part of the legislative return-to-work agreement foisted upon the parties by the government.
We think the parties can sort out their differences. If at the end of the day some element of those differences needs to be adjudicated, historically there has not been a method for having that done unless the parties agree. Our submission to the Industrial Inquiry Commission of the Sims task force was that should be part of the legislation, which precludes the work stoppage issue.
Those issues in dispute, as determined by either the board or the government and the minister, should be referred to some method of dispute resolution and let the industry continue to operate and serve the betterment of Canada.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with clause 27, which is one of the areas the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association seems to have a problem with.
First of all, let me just in general say I'm having difficulty buying your argument. So far you've had 30 days to analyse the bill, but you've suggested that you've only been able to look at it in a cursory way. At the same time you have made some pretty solid arguments, in your own minds, as to what parts of it you don't like.
.1610
I want to make it very clear that the committee is going to be here for a while. The House is going to break for Christmas. You're going to have probably three months before this bill comes back in. If that's not enough time for any group to analyse a bill of this nature and tell us what they're thinking, I guess I must have been exceptional when I was in the union movement, because I'd have known what I thought by now, and any employer group would have been the same.
I'm having difficulty buying your argument that we should delay having the discussion here because you don't have time.
Having said that, you've also made a comment in your brief that the powers of the arbitrator were not discussed. In fact they were discussed in the Sims task force, and it was a recommendation of the Sims task force that these provisions give the arbitrators an effective, flexible and expeditious way of dealing with these kinds of problems, so the board should have the ability to give the arbitrators that kind of information. It goes on and on.
I'm trying to find out what you mean by this right here. Why do you have a problem with the arbitrator having the power to determine the nature of the issues in dispute in order to address the real substance? Why would you have a difficulty with finding out the real substance of a dispute? Isn't that an arbitrator's role - to find out what the real problem is and then fix it so you don't have to go at this over and over again?
I'm having a really tough time following your rationale on that particular issue.
Mr. Mebs: Let me address two points.
First let me say I'm comforted by your comments that this committee will be dealing with the effects of this bill for potentially another three months. Our comments and certainly my provisions of the draft refer to our information that this discussion on the bill was going to end before 13 December. It was for that reason that we drafted our comments about the short purpose.
Mr. Nault: That's not what I said. I said this bill will be in front of the House of Commons and the government for a number of months.
Mr. Mebs: Well, with respect, this is the opportunity we have to convince the standing committee of any potential errors in the legislation. We as an association have no status in the House of Commons.
Mr. Nault: Ah, but there are many different mechanisms of dealing with amendments. They take place in the House of Commons as well as in this committee. To suggest there is no avenue after this committee is totally incorrect.
I know and you know a lot of lobbying will go on between now and before this bill is passed. To suggest we have to drag this committee on for months and months and hear every single witness who went in front of the task force for the last two years... Well, I think the government would grind to a halt if we started running the operations of the government in that fashion.
I'm just making it very clear that I'm not buying this argument that you haven't had a lot of time to start reviewing this and give us your beliefs and comments. Then it will be up to us to decide whether we buy that or not.
Mr. Mebs: Let me deal with your second issue with respect to expanding the nature of the issue in dispute.
Parties in labour relations generally appear before arbitrators because they want an issue in dispute, be it a rights or an interest issue, adjudicated. It is incredibly disruptive and contrary to the provisions of a collective agreement as negotiated if when you get to an arbitration, with the nature of the grievance or the dispute clearly defined, an arbitrator decides he is going to launch an investigation in a totally other area. It creates an entirely different scope of a dispute that frankly one or both parties are either ill-equipped or unprepared to deal with at that opportunity.
An arbitrator is a creature of a collective agreement. He is there to interpret and apply the collective agreement as the parties contemplated it through collective bargaining. He is not there to interpret in his own mind what might or should or could have happened.
That's why I say they are restricted to the four corners of the dispute put before them. That's what there is to be adjudicated, and it is not open for an arbitrator, in our submission, to go beyond that, unless the parties give specific authority or grant him specific jurisdiction to do that.
Generally we are not asking an arbitrator to write a new collective agreement. You ask an arbitrator to interpret the collective agreement language that's before him. That's his jurisdiction, upheld by labour codes across the country. We're suggesting that this provision, if drafted, allows an arbitrator to go far further than that, which is unintended and inappropriate and isn't consistent with the arbitral jurisprudence across the country.
.1615
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mebs.
Thank you, Mr. Nault.
That concludes your presentation, one I thoroughly enjoyed. We will of course be reviewing your submission and searching for ways to improve and/or accommodate the bill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mebs: Thank you, and thanks to the committee.
The Chairman: We'll take a two-minute break and then come back with the Grain Services Union.
.1616
.1623
The Chairman: I call this meeting back to order.
We have the pleasure to have with us Walter Eberle.
Welcome. As you know, you have approximately 10 to 15 minutes to give us an overview of your brief, followed by a 15- to 20-minute question and answer session. You may begin.
Mr. Walter Eberle (Senior Staff Representative, Grain Services Union): Thanks,Mr. Chairperson, and good afternoon to the rest of the members of your committee. I think this is the third time we've appeared. We appeared at the Sims commission, and also then with the minister we appeared on the road tour - once in 1995 with Sims and then April 1996 with the minister, so this is our third time.
It's a very brief brief, so I'm going to be brief.
The Chairman: We appreciate that.
Mr. Eberle: Thank you. I think we've covered all the areas in the different times we've appeared. We just didn't want to go unheard during this last kick at it, and here we are.
As the brief says, I'm Walter Eberle. I'm a senior staff representative of the union. Listening to all this grain talk makes me feel at home, because I was an elevator manager/agent for 16 years and worked with the union for 17 years, so I've been around quite a while in the grain trade. Hugh Wagner, who's secretary-manager of our organization, was going to be here, but we have an arbitration on this week so I'm here myself.
I welcome the opportunity for our union to state our views with respect to Bill C-66.
I think the background of our union is probably clear to some of you since you've seen some of the other briefs. We're not a large union. We represent only about 3,000 members, the majority of whom work in the primary country elevator system. We also have some people in inland terminals, in Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, and in the agro-service business in western Canada, who are affiliated to the British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta Federations of Labour, since we have members in each province. We are also affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress. As of two years ago, we're also affiliated with the Canadian area of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.
.1625
The rural and urban composition of our member base enables our union to bring a particular point of view to industrial relations federally. We have first-hand experience with the effects of globalization on local economic relations. We begin from the premise that the amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code should enhance the ability of working people to join trade unions. Globalization of markets and the transitional character of capital must be matched by national labour legislation strengthening the ability of working people to pursue their interests through free collective bargaining.
There are a substantial number of amendments to Bill C-66, and we do not intend to address every item. We will focus on a number of particular and relevant subjects as they pertain basically to our industry, our sector, employing the majority of our members. We support the submission of the Canadian Labour Congress as well, and that of the ILWU, the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, which I understand you'll be hearing later this week.
We'll start off with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. I guess we'll have to get away from the ``CLRB'' if this is passed. I don't know if ``CIRB'' rings as well.
We support the substantial reorganization of the composition and structure of the board that will replace the Canada Labour Relations Board. In our view, the creation of part-time board member positions drawn from the trade union and employer ranks will further enhance the quality as well as the reception of board decisions. We feel it's a very good move in that respect.
Needless to say, we also support the intent of the amendments on the board's administration process if they lead to some streamlining and so on. In this regard we feel the clarification of the bill's administrative authorities within the board structure is a sound amendment.
Secondly, on bargaining unit structures, clause 7 in Bill C-66, it is our submission that clarification and strengthening of the ability of the board to review the structure of bargaining units would be a good addition to the act. In an evolving economy it is important to provide for a flexible method of adjusting the collective bargaining process. In our opinion, however, great care should be taken with the ability of employers to apply to review bargaining units, since the freedom to join the trade union stems from the freedom of association and any employer interference with workers' choice of a bargaining unit or a bargaining representative should be minimized or eliminated.
Third, on interim orders, clause 8, the addition of the proposed section 19.1, clearly establishing the board's ability to make interim orders, is a significant improvement. The amendment grants the board remedial power now found in other jurisdictions. The impact will be positive, in our view.
Fourth, on replacement workers, clause 13, the proposed amendment to section 29 by the addition of draft subsection (1.1) is a welcome signal to trade union members. Specifically, the amendment establishes that a replacement worker hired in the place of a striking or locked-out worker is not an employee within the bargaining unit. The amendment addresses a fundamental concern of workers as we engage in free collective bargaining and our legal right to withdraw labour. Together with the subsequent amendment giving the new Canada Industrial Relations Board the power to inquire into the use of replacement workers, this amendment goes some distance in assisting peaceful industrial relations. We would be remiss, however, if we did not say the outright prohibition of the hiring and use of replacement workers is the best and simplest solution.
There is another aspect of the struck-work issue we wish to highlight. We note that Bill C-66 proposes to regulate the strike votes and the timing of strike action. Whether in clause 19 or in another clause of the bill, it should be made clear to all who participate in the fruits of collective bargaining that a majority vote authorizing strike action should establish the legal requirement of all employees in the unit to withdraw their labour. If we are to continue to have a democratic industrial relations system, then the sanctity of the secret ballot vote ought to be matched with the civic responsibility to respect the wishes of the majority.
.1630
Fifth, on arbitrators, clause 27, clarification and reiteration of the power of the arbitrators with respect to statutes is appreciated. Similarly, the ability of an arbitrator or arbitration board to grant relief on timeliness is an important advance in recognizing the reality of the industrial relations environment. We support any amendment to enhance the prospect of justice through the grievance-arbitration process.
Sixth, on dismissals and statutory freeze, clause 29, the proposed addition of subsection 6 to section 67 addresses a grey area with respect to the status of employees between the cessation of the statutory freeze and conclusion of a new collective agreement. Clear establishment of the entitlement to grievance and arbitration for employees who are the subject of dismissal or other discipline should eliminate some of the tensions naturally occurring during a strike or lockout. The amendment will further stabilize the collective bargaining process.
In relation to the subject of continuing access to grievance and arbitration, we further submit that the climate of industrial relations would be served by amendment to the bill to provide for the continuation of collective agreements until such time as the parties agree to the amendments or successor collective agreements.
Continuation of expired collective agreements is a feature of the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act. While the continuation does not prohibit strikes or lockouts, it certainly establishes a firm underpinning to collective bargaining. In our experience, the continuation provision of the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act mitigates against disruptive disputes. We would welcome such an amendment to the code.
Seventh, on strikes and lockouts, clause 37: the requirement of 72-hour strike or lockout notice may serve a useful purpose in the sense that it provides for sober second thought. In reality, however, the requirement of notice may result in a further avenue of litigation, as parties dispute whether timely or proper notice was given.
With respect to holding a strike vote within 60 days prior to a strike, we are not certain of the intent or experience the amendment is supposed to address. While we do not oppose periodic reiteration of the views of employees affected by a strike, there is some possibility that the matter may be complicated by the involvement of the minister through the conciliation process. Specifically, if a union holds a strike vote in conjunction with notification of the minister of a dispute, it is conceivable the strike vote would be stale by the time the conciliation process were complete. The result may be to shift the holding of strike votes until a time following the conclusion of the conciliation process. The problem that the latter development would raise is the question of the status of the provisions of the collective agreement in the period of the time between ministerial withdrawal from a dispute and the holding of a vote.
For the record, it is ironic that a union holds a vote of its members - shareholders, if you like - prior to the taking of a strike action, but the employer is not required to hold a vote of its shareholders prior to commencement of a lockout or precipitating a strike by unilateral implementation of new terms or conditions.
We are concerned that the essential services provisions set out in proposed section 87.4 may lead to an inordinate amount of litigation. In our experience, the determination of essential services, if any, is best left out of the bill and to the discretion of the parties.
As mentioned earlier, the right of a striking or locked-out worker to return to his or her job following cessation of a dispute as set out in proposed section 87.6 is an important reassurance to working people.
.1635
Our eighth point concerns proposed section 87.2, on services to grain vessels. Proposed section 87.2 addresses an issue so often raised during the course of collective bargaining disputes involving the ILWU and the BCMEA. As an affiliate of the Canadian area of the longshore, we are amply aware of the standing offer of the union to continue moving grain, notwithstanding a dispute with their employer. As a member of the rural community in western Canada, we are amply familiar with the hue and cry when industrial disputes halt or interfere with the flow of grain to export markets.
In our experience, the damage done to the grain handling system by strikes or lockouts is far overblown. However, perception is often as important as reality. In our original submission during the review of the part I of the Code, we opposed any legislative interference with the right to strike or lock out. Following long deliberations and consultations with those involved, we support the amendment that would continue the operation of export terminal elevators on the west coast in the event of a dispute between the ILWU and the BCMEA.
We know that several other commodity groups will argue - we already heard some today - that the designation given to grain is discriminatory. We note, however, that other commodity groups have representation and often direct influence on the functioning of the BCMEA, whereas the terminal elevator operators are a third party.
Our support of this amendment is made out of respect for the ILWU and Canadian farmers. We would not wish to see, however, proposed section 87.7 being used as a means to broaden any encroachment on the right to strike or lock out in the grain-handling industry.
In conclusion, we have not touched on all the amendments contained in Bill C-66. In addressing the highlights of particular importance to us, we do not mean to suggest that other amendments are unimportant. In the limited time available, we thought we would attend to some of the potentially more controversial issues.
In our view, Bill C-66 represents an important step forward in national labour legislation. In some aspects, we would have preferred an even more ambitious agenda, but on balance, Bill C-66 is a worthy product of extensive consultation with employers, unions, and the public.
We commend the honourable minister for bringing Bill C-66 forward. His leadership and the capable assistance of departmental personnel have enabled the House of Commons to consider another vital step in the modernizing of Canada's industrial relations. We urge swift passage of Bill C-66.
All this is respectfully submitted by our union.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Eberle.
We will now move to the Q and A. We'll start with Monsieur Ménard.
.1640
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your excellent brief, because you were able to cover both substantive issues and a number of nuances. You said you were satisfied with the make-up and representation of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Would you go so far as to say that appointments should be made from lists submitted by unions and employers? The bill specifies that the minister must carry out consultations, but it does not specifically say what kind of consultations.
Would you like the Official Opposition to make an amendment that would oblige the minister to base his appointments on a list provided by the parties in question?
You said you were concerned about the 72-hour notice. You say that this will divide parties, and that they will not agree on whether proper notice was given. What do you think the ideal conditions would be for beginning the strike process, given that you're concerned about the 72-hour notice? Unlike several other unions that have appeared before us, you seem to be relatively comfortable with the 60-day provision.
Could you describe what you think the ideal process would be? I understand that since we are dealing with provisions relating to essential services, you are convinced that this will lead to conflict. First of all, you don't believe that we should be legislating in this area, and you say that this should not be included in the act, but rather, should be covered by an agreement between the parties. Could you give us more details about that?
[English]
Mr. Eberle: It's a loaded question. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if a list were to go out to the unions that we had to respond to - if that's what you're referring to - there would be no problem.
But I thought we had gone through that process. This is our third, maybe even fourth brief on this subject on part I of the Canada Labour Code. I think we've responded to all the issues raised by the minister, albeit in this brief we only dealt briefly with a number of the more appropriate ones to our industry.
On the 72-hour notice, I don't think we're against it. Prior to this the system was that you went through a conciliation process - you do now, too. You go through a conciliation process and you end up with a 14-day notice at one point, 15 in another. When the minister reports, you could end up with another 7 days of waiting before you could take legal strike action or lockout. So the time period isn't going to be that much different. We just didn't understand why it was raised...or maybe just to simplify the process. We're not really against the 72 hours.
In the essential services section, we had a problem with dangerous situations in health and safety. In that section we feel it would be better left to the parties, which has been the case in many instances where essential services have been provided, whether it's public workers, highway workers, in the grain...
We have the example of the longshoremen. They have offered to keep the grain moving during a... We heard so many people talking about strikes earlier, we have to remember that probably half or more of them were lockouts, and there aren't as many of them as people make it seem. But speaking of the essential services area, that's where we feel the litigation would come in, because of the health and safety section of it.
I don't know if that answers your question, but we're in favour of the essential service part dealing with the ILWU in the movement of grain.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: This morning, the CSN pointed out to us that there was a hole in the bill. Since it has a ban on strikes or lockouts, or in other words, since it requires the provision of essential services, it wasn't clear whether or not replacement workers or scabs could be used at the same time.
.1645
The CSN said that the use of scabs within a company could lead to violence.
Have you looked at this provision of the bill?
[English]
Mr. Eberle: Merci. We definitely feel that clause 13 is a foot in the door - that's about all it is - in dealing with replacement workers. They would have to be on unemployment prior to notification of bargaining to be considered in the bargaining unit.
We understand that clause hasn't gone nearly far enough. The last part of our brief talks about that. We're relating that to scabs. There is no legislation to cover that. As far as replacement workers go as well, we'd be in favour of a prohibition on hiring and using replacement workers entirely. We feel the legislation proposed in proposed subsection 29(1.1) would be a foot in the door.
Mrs. Lalonde: But if scabs are hired at the same time as you have essential services, you will have in the company ordinary workers and scabs during a strike or a lockout. Isn't that dangerous?
Mr. Eberle: Yes, it is dangerous. Our position in our brief prior to this was to eliminate the use. Anti-scab legislation would be great.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Lalonde.
Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Eberle.
I'll pick up on what my colleague was talking about, that you favour an outright prohibition on replacement workers. Would it be fair to assume that any use of replacement workers will be seen by your union and possibly others - and I don't expect you to answer for other unions - as an infringement on the right of the unions to operate? In other words, will there be tremendous pressure on the industrial relations board by the unions, in your opinion, to rule that any use of replacement workers is an undermining of the union?
Mr. Eberle: Proposed subsection 29(1.1) basically sets out that once notice of bargaining has been given, from that point on any worker hired in the place of a striking or locked-out worker is a replacement worker and is not in the bargaining unit.
Our argument would be that they shouldn't be there. That's just one aspect. The hiring and bringing in of replacement workers is a foot in door. There's still the whole other subject of bringing in scabs or scab employees. We dealt with that in our second section, proposed section 19. We feel that anti-scab legislation should have been dealt with. But this is a foot in the door and that's why we went along with that first part of it.
Certainly it is a problem. We've experienced it in our union after 65 years. We only incurred our first strike in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in 1994 and scab labour was a big problem for us.
Mr. Johnston: Maybe the witness could clarify for me and others what the difference is between replacement workers and scab labour, among other things.
Mr. Eberle: Replacement workers are usually brought in - in many strikes or lockouts they're even just brought in to cross the picket line to show they can cross the picket line. There was the situation at Gainers, where they brought them across the picket line in a bus just to show they could bust across the picket line and get police protection to go in. After they got in, they were getting paid and weren't really working. They weren't part of the workforce, period. It was just the idea of getting them across the picket line and getting them in. That's one of the more severe cases.
.1650
You can call them replacement workers or you can call them scabs. Scabs are recognized under the code. They could be your own members who cross your own picket lines and come into work or they could be other people. They're usually people who were already hired and working for the employer.
Mr. Johnston: I'm glad you clarified that for me. I'm wondering, then, how the union would classify people in management positions who come in under a strike or lockout.
And it's fair ball when you point out that not all work stoppages are because of withdrawal of services. Oftentimes this government has been called upon to legislate people back to work when they were locked out in the first place. We recognize that.
So how would your particular union view the use of management to undertake at least enough essential services to keep the operation going with a skeleton crew?
Mr. Eberle: We don't view it as essential service, but they're there to try to keep the operation going. We did not try to stop management from entering the workplace. We may call them scabs, but obviously they have a right to go to work.
Mr. Johnston: May I ask a really quick question, Mr. Chairman?
Under this partial prohibition of replacement workers, then, you would take a different view of management coming in to undertake skeleton activities to keep the process rolling. You would take a different view of them than you would members of your own union who preferred not to be on strike.
Mr. Eberle: Management doesn't really come under the code, so once they go across the picket line and go into work, if they're going in to perform the work of the struck workers, you're going to treat them basically like scabs or replacement workers. However, usually at most points you let management go across.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Mrs. Terrana is next.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, and thank you very much for your presentation.
There are a few interesting things on page 3. First of all, you made a comment about the shareholders of a company not taking a vote. I think that's an interesting issue.
But there are a couple of other things you mention on this page. One has to do with the continuation of expired collective agreements, which is in the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act. I would like you to expand a little bit on that.
Also, would you clarify your point 7(b), where you talk about the 60 days prior to a strike? This morning my colleague Mr. Nault brought up the same subject. He has concerns about this very issue. He feels it's not a long enough time and it would just be a bigger demand on the union because there may be the necessity of taking a second strike because of the shortness of time.
Mr. Eberle: As for the trade union act of Saskatchewan, most of our collective agreements have a clause in them on ``duration of agreement'', which basically is a term from the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act. It is a term of contract. The term is in this bill too. When the contract expires, through your 90-day period, many collective agreements - plus the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act - require that the contract remain in full force and effect until another contract is bargained in its place. So you don't get the push to take immediate strike or lockout action.
The code has been amended here to increase that to four months to the end of the expiry of the contract, so that actually gives a little additional time to settle a contract federally.
.1655
So that's in part what it does. The contract remains in full force and effect until it's amended or another contract is bargained in its place. Seventy-two hours' notice -
Mrs. Terrana: No, it's the second one. The 60 days. It's point 7(b) on page 3.
Mr. Eberle: With respect to the 60 days, we didn't propose an alternative. All we said was that by the time you go through the whole conciliation process, which is a pretty lengthy process, if you have taken a strike vote at the same time, the strike vote could be stale by that point and you would possibly have to take another strike vote.
We're suggesting that people may wait until the conciliation process is over and then take a strike vote. That could end up causing further delays. Our concern was what happens between the point when the minister withdraws...his report comes out and then there is the seven-day waiting period. What happens if you have to take a strike vote that may take three weeks?
Mrs. Terrana: You have an alternative. What would you suggest instead of that?
Mr. Eberle: We don't feel 60 days is needed.
Mrs. Terrana: Would you leave it as is?
Mr. Eberle: Yes.
Mrs. Terrana: Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Proud.
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): First of all, I want to commend you for your submission.
Your last words urge swift passage of the bill. You believe the consultative process that took place over the last two years gave your organization, anyway, ample time to put your views forward, even though there may be some things in the bill that are not quite as you would like them. Do you think this is a pretty balanced piece of legislation that will enhance labour-management relations under federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Eberle: Yes, we believe so. We've had the opportunity as the Grain Services Union to submit three briefs already, and our union also takes part in the Canadian Labour Congress. We sit on that committee as well and have submitted presentations.
We feel the employers, the unions and the public have all been adequately consulted. You have to stop somewhere. We feel there are many areas that could be improved. Other parties may feel to the contrary. We feel that if it's the best we're going to come up with, we should be going ahead with it and the minister should be introducing it.
Mr. Proud: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.
Mr. Eberle, I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee.
Would you like to ask a question, Mr. Taylor? Very briefly, please.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Grain Services Union for their presentation today.
I most particularly commend you on your support of the amendment that continues operation at the ports for movement of grain. I think that in the interests of the industry it's a very important move and I appreciate that very much.
You state that in your experience the damage done to the grain handling system by strikes and lockouts is overblown. I think you and I could have a friendly discussion over that term.
The previous witness suggested that it might be completely overblown, not just somewhat, and suggested that we throw this clause out completely. I thought the previous presentation represented a complete misunderstanding of the grain collection and distribution system across the country. Could you give us a very brief outline of how that grain system is affected and why it is you've chosen to be so cooperative on this?
.1700
Mr. Eberle: It wasn't an easy thing. Our position is to let the parties decide. The problem is that wasn't happening. We had very broad consultations with the parties involved on the union side and we took the position that's going to be taken by the group.
In our union, after 65 years, in September 1994 we incurred our first strike ever in Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. We've been through a lot of things such as strike votes and everything else. We've gone to that single arbitrator. We've had agreement to go to single arbitrator, and we agreed to that. Then the employer wanted to name the arbitrator. In a hurry we said to forget that. That's the way the grain companies sometimes carry on.
Why we relate to ``strike'', the human cry... I'm a health and safety person; I'm on many committees, including the federal government one here, reviewing part II and so on. If you compare the person-days lost due to health and safety, it doesn't come even close to the number of days lost due to strikes and lockouts. It's just a drop in the bucket compared with the health and safety days lost due to accident and injury on the job. We feel employers and regulators should really be looking at those areas.
As far as the grain-handling system goes, usually you have a lockout or a strike for a day and then you hear the media saying already billions of dollars have been lost and everything is backed up. I think many people - we've seen examples of the different groups in those organizations - took advantage of that to use it as an excuse, as a scapegoat. We've seen that a number of times. We don't think the lasting hurt was as tremendous as the media would portray it.
That's an opinion from our union. You may have a different opinion.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, Mr. Eberle, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your contribution to the process.
For the record, I want to make a correction. Mr. Vallée, one of our witnesses this morning, mentioned air transit in his testimony. In fact, Mr. Vallée was referring to Nationair.
Now we'll move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]