Bill C-257 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.
The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

Motions in amendment

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we should indeed vote in favour of Bill C-257, which prohibits the hiring of replacement workers.

The reasons are simple. The Canada Labour Code does not, unfortunately, fully cover the rights of workers when they negotiate during a labour dispute, whether it is a lockout or a strike. Anti-scab legislation is indispensable, because it allows for civilized negotiations between employers and workers. It removes all the tension that may exist during a strike, when people cross picket lines. This is something that no one wants to experience, and this is what we want to avoid, among other things, by passing anti-scab legislation. The idea is to make negotiations more human, more civilized during a labour dispute.

When we voted at second reading, Bill C-257, the anti-scab legislation, was supported by 20 Conservative members, 70 Liberal members, and by all NDP and Bloc Québécois members. We are confident that other members will join this large group, because it is essential to understand that our purpose here is to improve negotiating conditions during labour disputes.

Without this protection, workers could find themselves at a disadvantage. Indeed, an employer who is not governed by an anti-scab law can hire replacement workers, scabs, thus creating an imbalance. Workers then find themselves negotiating with a boss who continues to make profits, while they have no income. This is indeed what happens during a legal labour dispute.

As I said earlier, Bill C-257 seeks to reduce violence on the picket lines. It promotes a fair balance during negotiations between employers and workers.

Such an act exists in two provinces, that is in the Quebec nation and in British Columbia. In the Quebec nation particularly, such legislation has helped improve negotiations. This is not science fiction. We are not talking about the bogeyman, who comes from the Jonquière-Alma region, and who is telling us that the end of the world is near because, all of a sudden, there is an anti-scab law in Canada. I will get back to this later on.

What is also magical about this legislation—and this will make everyone happy—is that it does not involve any additional costs to the government.

This legislation has existed for 14 years in British Columbia and 30 years in Quebec, in these two jurisdictions, and there has been no movement to scrap it. No one has led movements to get rid of this legislation that allows for civilized negotiations and labour relations during a work stoppage. I will give the example of Quebec because that is a part of the country I know well.

When the legislation passed by the Parti Québécois government in 1977 came into force in 1978, it helped, as I was saying previously, civilize labour relations.

Better still—an interesting observation—when the government of Robert Bourassa was elected in 1985 and returned to power, scrapping the legislation was out of the question. At the time, under the Liberal government, Mr. Bourassa had been approached to scrap the anti-scab legislation. He said—I will paraphrase because I do not have his exact words—that it was out of the question because the direction given to labour negotiations by the anti-scab legislation had brought unprecedented social peace to labour relations in Quebec.

I am talking about a Péquiste, René Lévesque, and a federalist, one Robert Bourassa. All the other governments that followed, those lead by Daniel Johnson, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry and currently Jean Charest, who is also a Conservative Liberal, have never backed down on this.

We hear the words of Canada's current Minister of Labour, who voted in favour of an anti-scab bill on November 5, 1990, when he was an MP in a Conservative government. At the time, he thought it was an excellent bill for all the reasons I just mentioned.

We have to have the mindset that we are working together here to ensure the protection of every party to a work relationship—managers, unions, employers and employees. Parties have to be on equal footing in negotiations—those who are on strike or were locked out and those who locked them out or are facing a situation where the company is shut down because of a strike. That speeds things up.

The Minister of Labour's fear campaigns and apocalyptic announcements are baseless. He should never forget what really goes on in the workplace. People who are directly involved appeared before the committees and proved through simple logic that the situation has improved for negotiations that take place during labour disputes.

That is contrary to everything we have heard from the Minister of Labour who, I repeat, on November 5, 1990, as a Progressive Conservative member of Brian Mulroney's government, voted for a bill like this one.

The current bill does not stop management from maintaining company activities, including the production of goods and the provision of services, nor from using employees to take necessary measures in order to avoid serious damage to a company's assets during a labour dispute. There are provisions in Bill C-257, to allay all fears and to ensure that this bill is effective and responds to everyone involved in talks on both sides of the negotiating table.

We have already mentioned the benefits in terms of fewer work days lost thanks to the framework a replacement workers bill can provide as opposed to a situation where there is no such bill. This is a time saver because it speeds up negotiations. It makes the parties sit down face to face and negotiate faster to reach a solution that works.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to once again speak to Bill C-257 on the issue of amending the Canada Labour Code to ban replacement workers. I thank my hon. colleague from Gatineau for having introduced the bill.

Over the last number of years, the Canadian government time and time again has enacted legislation that has been chipping away at the rights of working people rather than protecting them. We have seen Canada's record deteriorate so that now we have one of the worst records of any western country when it comes to the promotion and protection of labour rights.

That is why I and my colleagues in the NDP are standing up to speak out in favour of strong legislation that protects the fundamental rights to collective bargaining and the right to strike.

We know, as others have said before me, that ending the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout means fewer and shorter strikes and keeps workers on the job and businesses on the go.

Unfortunately, I have seen violence on picket lines. I want to recall Don Milner, whom I consider a friend and who, during a strike at International Truck in Chatham, was run over on the picket line. A young man with small children, he almost lost his life, and is still recovering from that experience. He was run over through no fault of his own.

We know of many other examples of violence on the picket line. Why? It is always provoked by the use of replacement workers.

Hiring replacement workers undermines the collective bargaining process rather than helping it and can negatively affect the quality of work being done.

Unlike previous speakers, who have said it is unlikely that we would have replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction, that they could not be trained and could not be used, I will say that this is not the case. There have been many strikes in the federal jurisdiction where replacement workers have been used.

We have seen how federal jurisdiction strikes have been prolonged unnecessarily, most recently the Vidéotron strike, I think, but we have also seen that at CBC, Air Canada and other places replacement workers have been used. I want to say for my hon. colleagues who say this sector is too important to ban replacement workers that I wish they felt it was so important that they were in support of a $10 an hour minimum wage in the federal sector, but that of course is another bill.

This is a sector that has many important services for Canadians, such as passport issuance and food inspection, and certainly we want to avoid any dispute that is long and bitter. The use of replacement workers is not the way to go. We need to avoid the use of replacement workers in this sector.

I am sorry that an amendment I made for this bill was ruled out of order. It was pertaining to the maintenance of essential services, but I want to emphasize that under the Canada Labour Code those section 87.4 essential services are protected and are not overridden by Bill C-257. I want to quote for members subsection 87.4(1):

During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

That exists now in law. In fact, long before a strike, employers and employees often agree to terms to allow essential services to be carried out. The Canada Industrial Relations Board and the minister have the authority to protect services during a strike. The CIRB has almost a dozen rulings that refer to the term “essential services” in addressing the continuation of services.

Supply of goods and services is not and should never be reliant on the use of replacement workers.

I have also heard members raise the issue about managers. Bill C-257 clearly allows for managers, directors and supervisors to replace striking workers. That would not change.

Bill C-257 will bring labour stability and encourage investment. I want to cite the experience in two provinces that have long had this kind of legislation.

British Columbia has had anti-replacement worker legislation since 1993. It has had a 50% drop in work time lost through disputes and is experiencing remarkable growth and continued investment.

Quebec as well has had this legislation since 1977. It was the result of a very, very bitter dispute in the 1970s at United Aircraft, where people were very badly injured during the use of replacement workers. Since then there has been labour peace and an average of 15 days lost per year versus an average of 31 days lost under the Canada Labour Code.

This legislation has been good for Quebec and good for British Columbia. I believe it would be good for Canada.

Clearly most employers do not have labour disputes. The overwhelming number of collective agreements in Canada are settled without dispute. No one wants to be on strike. No employer wants to be on strike or have a lockout. The vast majority of employers do not use replacement workers or could not use them because of the level of skill that is required.

This legislation is directed at those few rogue employers in order to create a level playing field for all workers and all employers. It is a fundamental issue of rights, the right to join a union and the right to collective bargaining.

For those rights to be meaningful, working people must have an effective right to withdraw their labour. It is the only power they have in collective bargaining. The use of replacement workers effectively takes away that power. That is widely recognized around the world. As I say, Canada is becoming known as a developed country that has been eroding the rights of working people in the workplace.

I note that the Liberals and the Conservatives have been divided on this bill. I think that is very unfortunate. I urge them to vote in favour. My colleagues and I in the NDP will be 100% in favour of this bill and we urge strongly that the House pass it.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). This bill was specifically intended to prevent the introduction of replacement workers by federally regulated employers during a strike or lockout.

There are those who have suggested the bill somehow goes far beyond this objective and they expressed their concern specifically about the wording of the bill. It was for this reason that I presented amendments to the bill, not to undermine the intent of the bill to ban replacement workers but rather to address the concerns that had been raised.

I must report to the House my disappointment that almost all of these proposed amendments have been ruled beyond the scope of Bill C-257. These amendments were written to address concerns that have been raised about several issues. I believe that these amendments did in fact accomplish this task. I joined with the majority of my colleagues on the human resources committee in supporting these amendments fully expecting they would be found within the scope of the bill.

Let me begin by first offering a few broad observations about the issue of replacement workers. I believe one of the most important points that has sometimes been clouded during the debate on this issue is the nature of most federally regulated workplaces. By their very nature federally regulated workplaces are not the kind of environment that can be described as accommodating to the introduction of replacement workers.

First, in terms of geography we must concede that there is a significant challenge placed before any employer who would attempt to hire replacement workers. To hire replacement employees in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Halifax, for example, in the same short time span normally associated with a strike is not a logistically realistic proposal.

Second, the nature of many federally regulated workplaces is such that hiring replacement workers is in many ways neither practical nor realistic. The character of these jobs is such that considerable training is often necessary and would make little or no sense in the timeframe realities of a strike.

Third, if our objective as legislators is to protect services that are essential for the health and safety of the public, then why would replacement workers be necessary when this issue is already addressed within the Canada Labour Code?

The point I am making is that the whole concept of replacement workers at the federal level is, in most circumstances, a redundant issue.

The intent of Bill C-257 was to address those situations where the use of such workers might be considered as a tool in the collective bargaining process.

During the course of the presentations before the committee and even in discourse outside the confines of this Parliament, there have been suggestions that essential services will be undermined if Bill C-257 is adopted.

Had the proposed amendments been allowed, I do not believe this would have been the case. Under the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code, subsection 87.4(1), employers and union representatives are required to agree upon which employees will continue to work during a labour disruption. This is to protect the health and safety of the public. No strike can commence until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

If this was the concern of those opposed to the amended Bill C-257, then their fears were unfounded. To ensure that these concerns were addressed beyond any possible misunderstanding, I introduced amendments to Bill C-257 that clarified the need to protect essential services first and foremost.

There is no inconsistency here and these amendments were, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of our colleagues on the committee, fully within the scope of the bill.

I must say that I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. government House leader state on Monday that the amendments “would also dramatically expand and alter the effect of section 87.4 introducing the much broader concept of essential services”.

While I disagree with his interpretation about the scope of the bill, if he really believed they had this effect, I would have thought he would have been supportive of a broader interpretation of essential services in view of some of his reasons for opposing this bill.

Many of those who opposed this bill also presented their positions before the committee and I must confess their positions were at times difficult to reconcile.

For example, a representative of a major railway company informed the committee that since 1971 there were four strikes, with only one being resolved through negotiation. The other three ended with back to work legislation.

I find it curious that back to work legislation would have been necessary in 75% of their labour disputes considering there is currently no ban on replacement workers. Clearly, the option of using such workers had no impact on the way these disputes unfolded.

I also note that a representative of the country's private broadcasters speculated at our committee about the possible impact of a strike at a broadcaster during the Quebec ice storms several years ago. He suggested that the public might have been ill served had Bill C-257 been law and a strike was under way. This raised two questions in my mind.

First, would not alternative broadcasters, including public broadcasters, have been available to provide information to the public? Second, how does one hire replacement workers to fill positions in technical jobs like those required at broadcasting companies during a strike or lockout?

The point I am making is that there has been much bluster and misunderstanding surrounding this issue.

As a representative of the Canadian Auto Workers remarked during his presentation, the introduction of replacement workers during a strike or lockout does not assist in facilitating a resolution. Rather, it creates conflict, delays an end to most strikes and develops considerable ill will on all sides.

Clearly it is very difficult in such a short period of time to adequately discuss all the issues that have been raised around Bill C-257. However, suffice it to say that the intent of Bill C-257 is to prevent the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout at federally regulated employers.

The current law is inadequate in this regard. Basically, for a successful prosecution of an employer to take place it must be shown that the employer hired replacement workers for the express purpose of undermining the union and the bargaining process. How could this be proven in a court of law? It cannot, or at least not without almost insurmountable difficulty. This is why Bill C-257, as amended, was needed.

As for the amendments themselves, they were designed to reaffirm the principles of the Canada Labour Code with respect to essential services and to allow management to continue to work unimpeded during a strike or lockout. That is all they would do.

The decision issued in the House yesterday was indeed quite troubling for me and for many of my colleagues on this side of the House. Bill C-257 as amended by the committee represented a balance that I believe was fair to all parties. It protected essential services, ensured managers could work and set reasonable limits on monetary penalties, while of course prohibiting replacement workers.

My support for Bill C-257 was very much associated with the successful introduction of the amendments upon which the Speaker ruled yesterday. However, I can assure this House that I fully support the principle of a ban on replacement workers. We should not let this setback deter us from moving toward this fair and reasonable objective. I am most certainly committed to continue to do so.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to take part in this debate.

Allow me to mention right away that the members of the Bloc Québécois are trying to take the example of what happens in Quebec and apply it to the whole country.

Unfortunately this is not the case with Bill C-257, which would no longer allow the use of replacement workers. I am myself a Quebecker and I understand very well what happens in Quebec, but when we talk about services on a national scale, it is not the same thing as in a province. What are the major services managed federally? We are talking about everything connected with travel, that is, when we take a plane, a train or a boat, everything to do with ports and also trucking, particularly the transportation of goods. It is the federal government that manages the major sector of travel.

Another example is our interpersonal communications and also our global communications. This is what is called telecommunications. The federal government manages Canada Post. Once again these are national matters. Another example is the transactions that take place when we pay for what we purchase, that is, banking transactions and banks.

These are three major sectors of activity that are managed federally. If a strike occurs in one of these sectors, regardless of where the strike takes place in the country, it has an immediate impact from one end of Canada to the other. For instance, what would happen if someone cut a telephone cable when replacement workers cannot be used? There would be no more 911 service, no more banking services possible, no more Internet. We can see the impact of such an act. Canada’s whole economy would be paralyzed, because we could not use replacement workers.

The airlines are another example. Let us say that the baggage handlers decide to go on strike and will no longer load baggage on the planes. Immediately, if it happens in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, Canada’s transportation economy is completely paralyzed. This is another example of the major role played by the federal government in this area, hence the necessity to maintain a balance and not put our country in a situation where the economy would be faced with total chaos. This is what is at stake here. Allow me also to say that the Bloc Québécois bill, as drafted, did not and unfortunately does not provide for essential services.

Let us imagine, once again, a situation in which essential services are not provided. What situation would we be putting our country in? That is why we are asking for the support of the opposition members, and more specifically of the Liberal Party, which has publicly said, in recent hours, that in point of fact, seeing that this Bloc Québécois bill did not provide for essential services to be maintained, it was not able to support that bill. Given this, we understand how that is case, because this bill makes no sense. We cannot put our economy at risk of being completely paralyzed.

As I said, balance is extremely important in labour relations. That is what we have at present in Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which was amended in 1999 and works very well. I would point out that an employer that used replacement workers in a labour dispute could not do so in order to bust the union. It could not do it for that reason. As well, even if it used replacement workers, a worker who was on strike would be able to go back to his or her job at the end of the strike.

I would point out that if Bill C-257 were in force right now, in the case of the strike we have just had at CN where there was a dispute between two unions—because the strike would still be going on, technically—we would have had to wait until the vote was over, to wait three or four weeks, before the employees could go back to work, even though there is now an agreement in principle between the union and Canadian National. Try to imagine three or four weeks more with no trains in the country. What kind of economy would we have? All areas of economic activity would be paralyzed. Last week, potash mines in Saskatchewan closed down, and there were serious problems at the ports in Vancouver and in the forestry industry. That is how it is from one end of the country to the other. Now imagine three or four weeks more.

People can be full of goodwill, but there are things that apply at the provincial level that cannot be applied Canada-wide because of the importance of the economic sectors that are managed by the federal government, including transportation, telecommunications and banking.

I thank the members who took the time in committee to examine this bill and put it under a microscope. It is clear to them that this bill had in fact been slapped together and failed to provide for essential services. Given this, we will be voting against Bill C-257.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-257, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 2 with the following:

“(c) use, in the”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-257, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 10 on page 3 with the following:

“employer from using the services of an employee referred to in paragraph (2.1)(c) to avoid the destruction of the employer’s property or serious damage to that property.

(2.4) The services referred to in subsection (2.3) shall exclusively be conservation services and not services to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services, which is otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).”

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in the House today to introduce Bill C-257 which would forbid the use of replacement workers, now at report and third reading stage. As you know, very few private members' bills reach the last stage of the legislative process.

But, before I begin my speech, I want to thank first, the member for Gatineau, who introduced the bill, and also the hon. members for Laval and Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who gave me their place in the order of precedence to allow me to speak for the first hour of debate.

There was a great deal of debate by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. After the bill was passed at second reading on October 25, 2006, it was debated at length in committee for four long months, not including the months spent prior to that. This bill was tabled on May 6, 2006. However, in the past 17 years, a dozen bills have been tabled in this House by the Bloc and have been debated. An almost identical law has been in force in Quebec for 30 years and in British Columbia for 14 years. This bill has been the subject of a great deal of debate, discussion and testimony that was given, seen, heard, debated and discussed.

Today, I am presenting two amendments that are not at all frivolous. They are being made primarily because the Speaker of this House ruled that the Liberal amendments regarding essential services were out of order because, in his opinion, they broadened the scope of the bill.

As hon. members will see, our first amendment eliminates a small phrase to avoid redundancy. I will call this an amendment for the purpose of consistency.

The second amendment modifies clauses 2.3 and 2.4. It is necessary since the amendment of the member for Davenport is now inadmissible and we still had to address clauses 2.3 and 2.4.

These new Bloc amendments correct the translation error in the original bill. In addition, they clarify the French version, which now states the original intention of the Bloc Québécois, which is to define who is able to work during a labour dispute.

As I have said elsewhere, the Bloc's bill is modelled on Quebec law, and keen observers may notice that clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the bill, as put forward in the amendment, are almost identical to the two paragraphs of section 109.3 of the Quebec Labour Code.

As I said earlier, these Bloc amendments aim to clarify the possibility of employers allowing management to work during a labour dispute in order to maintain production. This is the first case. I said it once, and I will say it again, because some people have misunderstood the Bloc's bill: this bill enables managers to work when there is a labour dispute.

The Bloc amendment also allows the employer to use the services of unionized employees to avoid the destruction of the employer's property or serious damage to that property. The bill initially introduced by the Bloc last May 6 allowed this, but there was a translation error that indicated, particularly to anglophones, that it did not allow it. There was a lot of confusion there and this second amendment clears up the confusion. It also clarifies the French version, which now leaves no room at all for interpretation.

Under the amendments proposed today, Bill C-257 permits two categories of persons to work: managers and unionized employees who must see to the conservation of the employer's property. In another situation, unionized employees who are on strike or lockout can go back to work. We refer to the Canada Labour Code itself, to its section 87.4, which already exists. In the language of trade unions and labour, we call this the essential services clause. It is already in the code.

The Conservative government and some other members in this House make a point of ignoring section 87.4. They prefer to use scare tactics about the consequences of our bill.

I would like to quote section 87.4, which is often referred to as the essential services section, as I mentioned earlier. It complements the Bloc Québécois bill very well. Here is subsection 87.4(1):

During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

The seven subsections that follow in the existing Labour Code explain how this agreement can function, the role of the Canada Industrial Relations Board in the development of these agreements and the situations in which the Minister of Labour can intervene. In passing, I would add that section 87.7 even specifies the essential services to be provided to grain vessels, and obliges employers and employees to ensure the loading and movement of grain vessels. There are many exceptions, but the health and safety of Canadians is extremely important. The Canada Labour Code already covers that.

Mr. Speaker, you said so yourself, yesterday in this House. You related section 87.4 to essential services, explaining that, although the code does not use that term, the concept is there.

In response to the questions I asked on February 7, 2007, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, whose mandate is to interpret the Canada Labour Code, indicated that section 87.4 is, in fact, often interpreted as a section on essential services. Cathy Braker, senior counsel for the United Steelworkers, said that she could cite several examples. She added, “I can tell you that the language that is reflected in section 87.4 is language that is reflected in almost all of the statutes dealing with essential services across Canada”. Furthermore, unions and employers, in both verbal and written communication, often associate section 87.4 with essential services.

Entirely by chance, last week, when there was talk of special legislation and I was doing some research on the CN Rail dispute, I found a letter dated July 26, 2006, signed by the United Transportation Union president, and entitled “Subsection 87.4(1) of the Canada Labour Code, agreement for essential services”. The letter repeats the term “87.4”, meaning the agreement for essential services.

The bill in front of us is an excellent bill. Similar or almost identical measures have been in place in Quebec for 30 years now, since 1977. Statistics show that employees and unionized workers regulated by the Canada Labour Code lose more workdays due to labour disputes than those who fall under the Quebec Labour Code. Employees under the Canada Labour Code spend more days away from work due to labour disputes. That has been proven. Workers under the Canada Labour Code represent less than 8% of workers in Quebec but they account for 18.8% of person-days lost in work stoppages. These number are extremely high and speak for themselves. Moreover, the number of labour disputes has been decreasing in Quebec in the last 30 years. There were nearly 300 in 1977 and only 75 in 2005. We can see the number of labour disputes is on the decrease in Quebec. Conflicts affecting workers covered by the Quebec Labour Code are less violent because workers on the picket lines are less susceptible to harassment by replacement workers. Workers feel a lot of injustice. One must admit that in the present situation, the Canada Labour Code creates an unbalance. There are negotiations between workers and employers but all of a sudden, a third group of players—the replacement workers—comes into the game. They play for the employer's team. Changing the rules of the game like that creates a completely unfair situation.

In conclusion, I would say that the scare tactics of the Minister of Labour did not fool anybody.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-257.

Motion No. 2 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Even on Bill C-257—The last bill we dealt with here was Bill C-257, which also dealt with federal jurisdiction. It seems that you kind of pick your spots politically here. I'm wondering how you justify it.

Bill C-257

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present in this House, a petition signed by at least 200 people who are asking the members of this chamber, from all parties, to vote in favour of the anti-scab legislation, Bill C-257. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. These 200 signatures are in addition to thousands of others already presented to Parliament.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

That's interesting, because we're dealing with Bill C-257, and I get a lot of interest in that from your members, as opposed to this issue of telecom. I tend to believe that this issue of telecom will probably be a lot more devastating to the bottom line for your members.

A comment that you had with respect to consolidation and concentration in the number of media that are out there was not lost on this committee, and this member of Parliament has been raising it since 2000. When one player who's in the phone business owns a large national broadcaster and owns a large paper, then only certain things are going to be covered in terms of the media. And the same applies to their competitor, which also happens to own very much the same configuration.

How do you see the next wave of mergers taking place? This is the second time. I'm, of course, very concerned about it. Ironically, those things have never been published in either the National Post or The Globe and Mail. Nevertheless, how do you see these mergers affecting your membership as it relates to multimedia takeovers? You mentioned CHUM, for instance, and A-Channel as an example. I've spoken to a number of journalists. They're very concerned. They've already eviscerated some of their rooms.

Bill C-257—Canada Labour Code—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

On February 26, 2007, a point of order was raised by the Leader of the Government in the House to the effect that amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in its consideration of C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) and reported to the House on February 21, 2007, are inadmissible.

The hon. members for Davenport, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Scarborough—Rouge River and Windsor—Tecumseh have also now presented their arguments on the matter.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

In terms of amendments adopted by committees on bills, if they were judged to be inadmissible by the Speaker, those amendments would be struck from the bill as amended because the committee did not have the authority to adopt such provisions. As the hon. Member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean reminded us, this is succinctly explained in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on April 28, 1992 at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

This is precisely the kind of case that I am being asked to adjudicate today.

Before getting into the substance of that case, I want to comment briefly on a precedent cited earlier today where the admissibility of an amendment adopted in committee was challenged, though on rather different grounds than the case before us now.

The hon. Member for Roberval—Lac St-Jean referred to the ruling handed down by the Speaker on October 26, 2006 with respect to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). Although the Member for Roberval—Lac St-Jean is right in citing that decision as an example, he gives it his own interpretation. In that particular case, the Speaker carefully examined, one by one, the amendments adopted by the committee and concluded that, as regards strict compliance with procedural rules, the committee had not exceeded its powers in adopting the amendments challenged by the government.

The case before us is rather different. Given the very narrow scope of Bill C-257, any amendment to the bill must stay within the very limited parameters set by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that are amended by the bill.

I have reviewed with great care the text of Bill C-257 as adopted at second reading, the text of the amendments adopted in committee, the relevant sections of the parent act, the Canada Labour Code and, of course, the arguments presented by the hon. members who intervened on this matter. I am now ready to rule.

In relation to the first amendment, the government House leader contends that an amendment proposed in committee by the hon. member for Davenport to clause 2, subparagraph 2.1, is inadmissible because it attempts to make the bill “subject to section 87.4” of the Canada Labour Code. As the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean noted, the first reading version of the bill already contained this exact phrase within subparagraph 2.1(c); the amendment simply repositioned it within the same subparagraph.

Therefore, the Chair is of the view that this amendment can be characterized as a reference to section 87.4, rather than as an amendment to the Canada Labour Code dealing with the maintenance of services. As such, this amendment to subparagraph 2.1 does not import matters which are beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore admissible.

The admissibility of two other amendments to clause 2, both proposed by the hon. member for Davenport, is also in dispute. The first is to subparagraph 2.3 and introduces the concept of “essential services”. After hearing ample discussion in committee on the admissibility of this amendment, the committee chair found the amendment to be beyond the scope of the bill and ruled it inadmissible. That ruling was challenged and overturned, and the amendment was subsequently adopted. The second disputed amendment, this one to subparagraph 2.4 and also dealing with “essential services” enjoyed the same fate.

The hon. members for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Windsor—Tecumseh have maintained in their arguments that these two amendments serve to clarify the intent of the main provisions of Bill C-257. They argue that these amendments are admissible for they only make clearer the bill's provisions with respect to replacement workers as these relate to the continuation of essential services.

I fully appreciate the arguments that my hon. colleagues are making. However, I fear that their views are precisely what Mr. Speaker Fraser meant in the 1992 ruling cited earlier when he warned members against being led into the temptation of amendments not contemplated in the original bill.

Hon. Members will know that Bill C-257 is limited in its scope. As the summary of the bill adopted at second reading explains:

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employees under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

Bill C-257 amends three sections of the Canada Labour Code: section 87.6 dealing with the reinstatement of employees after a strike or lockout, section 94 dealing with prohibitions relating to replacement workers, and section 100 dealing with offences and punishment.

Clause 2, where the two remaining disputed amendments lie, addresses section 94 dealing with prohibitions relating to replacement workers. Clause 2 in the original bill does not touch section 87.4 which is the operative provision of the Canada Labour Code dealing with essential services.

Indeed, it is worth noting that the very phrase “essential services”, although one with which we are all familiar, is not a phrase found in the Labour Code. The Labour Code does not use the term, but refers to “maintenance or continuation of activities to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

The first amendment imports the new concept of essential services into a clause originally addressing employers' right to protection of their property. As for the second amendment, while it does not actually directly seek to amend section 87.4, it nevertheless does reach back to the parent act and import into Bill C-257 the terms of reviews of orders made by the board under subsection 87.4(7), concepts not found within the bill as adopted at second reading.

Therefore, on strictly procedural grounds, the Chair must conclude that the ruling of the chair of the committee was correct: these last two amendments do go beyond the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading and are therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to this decision, I must order that the two inadmissible amendments to clause 2, subparagraph 2.3 and 2.4 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void, and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-257 be published with all possible haste for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

Since report stage on this bill is to be taken up tomorrow, I have advised the Table officers to take appropriate action to ensure that any report stage motions of amendments submitted this evening are in proper form. As hon. members know, they must be submitted by 6 p.m. tonight.

I therefore wish to thank the House for giving me the opportunity of addressing this complicated and somewhat unusual situation.

Bill C-257—Canada Labour Code

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the arguments of my friends, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and I wish to respond briefly.

The member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean claims that the purpose of the amendments is simply to limit the application of the private member's bill before us and, as such, it does not go beyond the scope. That may well have been the intention, but the fact is that the device, the actual approach, used to achieve that objective is in fact a very different one.

It is not the case of one that is limiting the provisions of the bill that were already before the House of Commons and before the committee. Rather, it is to introduce entirely new sections, new provisions and new concepts, and the definition of essential services, one that did not exist. The amendments introduce new concepts that expand the scope of sections that were previously unaddressed by the private member's bill. As such, while the effect in part may be a limitation, the actual other effect and the reality of the approach and device used actually significantly expand the nature of the bill beyond the original scope.

With regard to my friend, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the argument he has made is essentially that the committee should be master of its own destiny, that it has the right to control its own process. In fact, the rule of order we are dealing with actually states quite the contrary. The basis of that rule is that the House of Commons is the master of its destiny, and when the House of Commons made its decision on second reading of Bill C-257, it did determine at that point the scope of the bill and what its principle was. It determined the essence of the matter in the bill.

Those are the parameters that have been set by the House within which that committee can operate, so in fact no, the committee is not master of its own destiny to do whatever it may like with the bill. It does not have the right to control its own process. It must do so within the parameters of the legislation that has been sent to it by the House. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the arguments I made to you yesterday remain in place and that what we have in these amendments are amendments that go beyond the scope and purpose of the original bill approved by the House at second reading.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I support the speech by the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, and particularly his argument regarding the immigration bill.

I will not repeat some of those arguments. It seems to me that really there are two issues that I do want to address and that you should take into account in making your decision on whether the amendments to Bill C-257 are admissible or not.

The first one is the general principle of what is within in the principle and scope of legislation. We debate that a lot in committee and occasionally in the House. The second issue that I believe you need to take into account is really the authority of the committee to control its own process. I would remind you of the number of times that you have indicated in the House how strongly you feel about the right of the committee to control its own process. I think this is an issue that has to be taken into account here.

Let me go back, though, to the primary point about whether these amendments are admissible or are outside the principle and scope of the amendments contained in Bill C-257. Again, in support of the arguments you have heard from the member of the Liberal Party and now from the House leader of the Bloc, I do not see these amendments doing anything in the way of changing the principle and scope. When one looks at them in a holistic way, they simply are clarifying what is the intention of the author of the bill, which is to make it very clear that in the amendments with regard to what we always call anti-scab conduct and anti-scab legislation, the intent is to simply clarify when this legislation is to be used.

In effect, the amendments are saying that when it comes to essential services, whether it is the Canada Labour Relations Board and I suppose even potentially the House with back to work legislation, we would conduct ourselves as if essential services were outside the scope of these amendments contained in Bill C-257. The amendments to Bill C-257 really just address that point. That is what they are about. It is simply a mechanism to clarify. We are certainly not changing the principle.

That is very clear, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the fact that the author of the bill was quite prepared to accept these amendments. They are not contrary to the principle. The real issue is whether they are outside the scope. Again, this is simply carrying out the intent of the author of the bill and nothing more.

With regard to the second issue of the right and responsibility of the committee to control its own process, as you have heard, all of the opposition parties supported these amendments and did so by having to overturn the ruling of the chair. They did that not out of any partisan basis or out of spite. They did it because there was an honest difference of opinion in how these amendments should be interpreted.

The chair of that committee saw them as being beyond the scope and ruled accordingly. The significant majority of the committee said no, this is simply about clarifying, and it is quite within both the principle and the scope of the bill, and all we are doing is clarifying what we intend these sections to do, and nothing more. On that basis, because of that difference of opinion, the majority on the committee, arguing and maintaining the position that it was simply clarifying, overturned the chair's ruling and proceeded to make those amendments and send the bill back to the House.

I have read the submissions made by the House leader for the government. I understood the arguments, which were similar to the arguments made at committee, but they are missing the essential point. We are not making changes to the Canada Labour Relations Act and Labour Code. We are simply clarifying what Bill C-257 is intended to do, nothing more than that.

Although the points were well made by the House leader for the government, the government is in fact missing that essential point of these amendments simply being clarification. On that basis, they are not beyond the principle and they are not beyond the scope of the legislation originally proposed in Bill C-257. They are well within the authority of the committee to make that decision, to make that interpretation and to make that decision to overrule the chair.

I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that you should honour that decision by the committee and allow these amendments to proceed.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I have more information to add to the arguments that I presented on Bill C-257 and the admissibility of the amendments that affect this bill.

During the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Thursday, February 15, the chair ruled on the admissibility of two amendments, and despite contrary opinions from the witnesses and the committee clerk, he nonetheless ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill.

The purpose of the amendments is essentially to include in the anti-scab legislation the concept of essential services for the maintenance of activities in labour disputes in clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the bill to amend section 94 of the Canada Labour Code.

The committee chair's ruling was overturned since three of the opposition parties, forming the majority in committee, felt that this concept was not beyond the scope of the bill.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons brought this up again in a point of order and went a step further in his argument than the chair of the committee did. He said that the three amendments proposed in committee were inadmissible.

Our current situation is rather unusual. Precedents concerning the admissibility of amendments proposed in committee are rare in this House. However, we note that, in 1992, Mr. Speaker Fraser faced a similar situation. The context was this: during a committee review of Bill C-54 concerning farm products marketing agencies, the committee chair ruled that three amendments were inadmissible, because two of them sought to amend the incorporating act, and the third amendment went beyond the scope of the bill. As in the current situation, the committee chair's ruling was reversed. Regarding the constraints imposed on the amendment process in committee, Mr. Speaker Fraser said:

It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a clear example:

In some cases, this last cardinal rule is graphically clear. For instance, if a committee is examining a Criminal Code bill dealing with lotteries, a member cannot reach back to the parent act to propose amendments to those sections dealing with firearms. In certain other cases, this principle is more difficult to explain.

Based on this ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser, it is quite simple to demonstrate to the House that the amendments proposed to Bill C-257 concerning the provision of essential services in the event of a labour dispute do not go beyond the scope of Bill C-257.

Moreover, during this session, you yourself ruled on the admissibility of committee amendments to Bill C-14. These amendments sought to include an appeal process in the Citizenship Act (adoption). At that time, you reversed the decision of the committee chair. Your ruling was completely justified, because including an appeal process in a bill designed to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring that they be permanent residents was quite logical and, as in the case before us today, did not go beyond the scope of the bill. I want to quote your decision, which was very wise:

Having reviewed the bill as reported to the House, I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. In the view of the Chair then, the amendment is admissible in that respect.

The purpose of Bill C-257 is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

The bill also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence. In this particular case and in the original version of clause 2.3, which set out some exceptions for protection of property, specifically in cases of labour disputes, I do not see how stipulating situations where the new conditions should be relaxed could be considered going beyond the scope of the bill. These are additional clarifications, exactly as you ruled in the case I mentioned previously.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons initially said that we could not amend Bill C-257 by making reference to section 87.4, claiming that this section was not in the original bill. This is not true. In the original bill, we referred to section 87.4 in clause 2.1. I suggest that he reread the original bill. The argument by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons therefore simply does not hold up, because it is based on a falsehood.

In fact, this first amendment clarifies how section 87.4 is affected. Since the initial bill mentions subsection 94(2.1) and section 87.4 of the Code, this amendment merely clarifies how these two provisions relate to one another. It is very easy to understand.

Let us now move on to the clauses that posed problems in committee.

Bill C-257 amends certain sections of the Canada Labour Code, including section 87.6, subsection 94(2) and section 100. A reference to section 87.4 also appears in clause 2.1, as I was saying earlier.

Bill C-257 amends subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code to include additional prohibitions against employers using replacement workers during labour disputes.

By adding a reference to section 87.4 of the Code—the section that covers the maintenance of activities during a strike or lockout—we are specifying that maintaining certain activities is sometimes essential to public health and safety, even during serious labour conflicts.

Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code is known as the essential services section. Integrating this concept illustrates that we recognize the risks a labour conflict may entail.

In fact, as I was saying yesterday, the amendments introduced in committee do not go beyond the scope of the bill. On the contrary, they reduce its impact and have the same effect on the replacement workers bill as the board of referees has on the Immigration Act, a situation you considered acceptable.

This provides further clarification. To say that it is impossible to introduce amendments that limit the application of a bill, that define and clarify it, would be to say that all committee work is totally useless because it cannot change the application of any bill being studied anyway.

The main argument is, I repeat: how can anyone claim that these amendments go beyond the scope of a bill when the purpose of these amendments is, in fact, to limit its scope? These amendments fall within the framework of the bill; they do not allow the boundaries of the bill to be overstepped. All these amendments do is limit the application of this law.

In my opinion, given these additional arguments and the wisdom you showed in the decision I quoted earlier, Bill C-14, if you apply the same principles and the same logic, which is always unshakeable in your case, Mr. Speaker, you will find you must tell the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to redo his homework.

Bill C-257--Canada Labour Code

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the member, to the House leader and also you, as you make your ruling, that all the amendments made at the committee were friendly and appropriate. That is, they were consistent with the intent and the objectives of Bill C-257.

They would bring further precision to the manner in which the prohibition against replacement workers would be implemented and administered. These amendments do not negate the purpose, objectives nor substance of a bill. They ought to be accepted as part of the process by which bills are defined in committee.

The first amendment, which is introduced the phrase “Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout”, is consistent with the existing provisions of the code, which establish that there must be satisfactory resolution of all issues under section 87.4 before a strike or lockout begins. In fact, the CIRB, on many occasions, has interpreted section 87.4 to mean essential services. Therefore, it is not beyond the scope of the bill, nor beyond the scope of this section.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 once again are consistent with the objectives of the bill and simply seek to clarify the intent of the bill in terms of avoided any unintended effects. Amendment No. 4, once again, deals with the fine tuning of the objectives and intents of the bill.

All these amendments are within the principle and purpose of the bill. I would ask in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that you clearly look at them. I believe you would agree with me that it was within the intent of the bill and the principles and purposes that these amendments were made.