The current rail crisis would never have hurt the country's economy and poisoned, as it is doing, labour relations in the railway sector for long, if the Canada Labour Code had contained some of the provisions in Quebec's Labour Code, which are aimed at settling this type of dispute while keeping damage to a minimum. It is easy to imagine what would have happened, at least in Quebec, if our province had jurisdiction over the railways, or better yet, if Quebec was sovereign. Let us imagine, for the sake of comparison, how the current rail crisis would have been handled in a sovereign Quebec if the current provincial legislation had still been in effect.
Let us suppose, first of all, that, in both Canada and the State of Quebec, railway unions decide to go on strike after negotiations reach an impasse. In Canada, after giving notice, the unions go on strike, leading to immediate confrontation. Other unions are locked out. In the State of Quebec, however, things would not degenerate so quickly, Madam Speaker.
In the State of Quebec, after assessing a strike's potential risks to the public, the government issues an order-in-council.
With this order, the onus is on both parties to negociate, before going on strike, what we call essential services, that is the basic services to be provided during the strike in order for the users to be somewhat disturbed by the dispute. After all, it is a matter of a balance of power and not a complete stalemate.
Then you have different possible scenarios and various steps, and I will not go into the details, but at the end of the day, the government has the final word. In light of a report prepared by the board of essential services which was established to that effect, if the government considers the agreed services are not sufficient, it can suspend the right to strike until both parties agree to their satisfaction or the unions submit unilaterally a list of services that the government finds satisfactory. Then the strike is authorized and may start. That is the end of the first step which is aimed at humanizing the strike to come, a step that does not exist in Canada.
So, now there is a strike in the State of Quebec. But it is a civilized strike, if I may say so, within a well defined framework. Of course users are not pleased but their activities are not totally disrupted. What if the unions do not respect their commitments? What if the agreed services are not provided? The government will then suspend the right to strike and, in case of violation, submit the matter to the Attorney General to obtain an injunction, possibly.
The use of civilized dispute settlement mechanisms prescribed by the Quebec law does not exclude firmness, if required. Negotiations would continue throughout this civilized strike. The government might be forced to legislate in the end, but the right to strike would not be undermined and the economy would not suffer as much.
This is how things would be done in a sovereign Quebec or, if you prefer, not to prejudge the matter, if the Canada Labour Code contained some of the clauses in the Quebec Code. The outcome would be different if, instead of the confrontation made inevitable by the Canada Labour Code which is brutal and basic, we had more civilized exchanges which would allow for the inclusion of some of our own legal clauses, which are based on the need in a real democracy to reconcile the citizens' right to strike and the employers' and users' right to essential services.
In fact, the Canadian law practically led inevitably to the current confrontation and only by agreeing to the principle of mediation, which was proposed Monday by our party, could this House end the conflict without hitting very hard the workers who will not forget. How can we avoid a tragic situation in a country where, in case of a labour dispute within a public utility, the government-after 24 hours of strike by workers-has, under the terms of its legislation, no choice but to allow the strike to go on and nearly bring to a standstill the economy and operations in some sectors or deny the workers' right to strike by unilaterally putting an end to the strike after 24 hours?
The die is cast, as far as the current dispute is concerned. If this can be of any consolation to you, this assembly will soon have the opportunity to avoid similar disputes in future by amending the Canadian Labour Code in such a way that labour disputes could from now on be settled in the same civilized and efficient way as is done in Quebec.
Indeed, my colleague from Manicouagan just presented a bill-Bill C-317-to introduce in the Canada Labour Code provisions similar to those we have in ours. This bill provides for the maintenance of all essential services in case of a strike and for the creation of a board to this end. In turn, it prohibits as in Quebec an employer from using the services of a person not usually in his employ during a strike or a lockout.
The current crisis in this country will not have hurt workers, employers and users in vain, if it makes us aware of a terrible deficiency of the Canadian Labour Code and if it leads us, in order to remedy it, to enact Bill C-317, introduced by my
colleague for Manicouagan. If we indeed enact that bill, Canada-when Quebec has become a sovereign country-will have nothing to envy it as far as labour legislation is concerned.
