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.

Royal Recommendation--Bill C-574

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding Bill C-574, An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system.

Bill C-574 proposes to create a new bill of rights for a retirement income system that would promote the goals of adequacy, transparency, affordability, equity, flexibility, security and accessibility for all Canadians.

Clause 13 of the bill would require the Minister of Justice to examine every bill and regulation to ascertain whether any of the provisions violate, among other things, an individual's right to accumulate sufficient pension income to provide for a lifestyle in retirement that the individual considers adequate, an individual's right to determine how and when to accumulate pension income, and an individual's entitlement to receive investment advice from an advisor free of conflict of interest.

Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act provides that the Minister of Justice must examine every bill and regulation in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights states that the Minister of Justice shall examine every bill and regulation to ascertain whether any provisions thereof are inconsistent with this act.

Bill C-574 would impose an additional obligation on the Minister of Justice that is not currently authorized by statute. In particular, the new functions envisioned in clause 13 of the bill would require actuarial, financial and economic expertise well beyond the current mandate and activities of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice.

Precedents indicate that imposing new obligations not provided for in statute requires a new royal recommendation. On page 834 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered.

On October 20, 2006, the Speaker ruled, in the case of Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, that Bill C-286:

...extends the application of the program...that does not currently exist under the witness protection program. In doing so, the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function. .... New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

On June 13, 2005, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, that:

...clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose....

On September 20, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, that:

...the provisions in Bill C-257 which relate to the designation of investigators by the minister do not constitute an authorization for new spending for a distinct purpose. The functions which are already being performed by inspectors would appear to be reasonably similar to the functions envisaged by Bill C-257.

I submit that this last precedent does not apply to Bill C-574 as the functions set out in clause 13 of the bill would significantly alter the functions of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice. That is because the new functions in Bill C-574 would require actuarial, financial and economic expertise well beyond the mandate and current activities of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice.

In conclusion, the additional functions for the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice proposed in clause 13 of Bill C-574 are not currently authorized in statute. The bill, therefore, should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Canada Labour Code

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to once again defend Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). I hope that it will be passed. I would like to read the summary:

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. It extends the obligation to maintain essential services. The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

There are two opposing philosophies here in the House. There is the philosophy of the young parties, like the Bloc Québécois, which turned 20 this year, and the NDP, which is older than the Bloc Québécois, but younger than the older parties—the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. Today's speeches by the Conservatives and the Liberals reflect the old, preconceived ideas about labour relations that they inherited from the past.

It is important for the Conservatives to listen to me. They mentioned recent disputes at Air Canada and Canadian National. I was the transport critic during the Air Canada crisis, and I was directly affected by it. The Conservatives spoke of the mediation process, but it was short-lived. The minister had already prepared back-to-work legislation. For the first time, I received phone calls from union representatives and from Air Canada representatives, who told me that this legislation should not be introduced because it would be terrible for labour relations. Both the employees and the employers were asking me to do whatever I could to ensure that the minister did not introduce the back-to-work legislation, because, once again, the mediation had not been enough. All that because the government is living in the past when it comes to labour relations.

Things have changed. There is a shortage of airplane pilots. We can do whatever we want, but there will not be enough replacement workers, because we need more airplane pilots.

Let us figure out how these disputes can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. One way of doing so would be to pass a bill like this one, which would be a step forward. Federally regulated employees work in sectors such as transport, banking and communications, as well as in the public service, where it is easy to find replacement workers.

This is clear in the labour dispute that has been going on for over 20 months at the Journal de Montréal. Last weekend's edition of the Journal de Montréal explained how the employer wants to solve the dispute. It wants to get rid of over half of the staff, but more importantly, it wants the new publication created by the locked-out employees, ruefrontenac.com, to be shut down. The dispute has gone on so long that the employees have created their own information network, ruefrontenac.com. This is affecting the Journal de Montréal so much that, in its negotiations, it is asking the employees to shut down ruefrontenac.com.

Things are evolving. Once again, the Conservatives do not understand, and the Liberals, even less. In 2007, when Bill C-257 was introduced in the House, the Liberals voted in favour of it at second reading, but decided to vote against it at third reading because it did not cover essential services.

I prepared Bill C-386 very carefully along with the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the hon. member for Gatineau, who both have close ties to union organizations, as I once did, and we included the issue of essential services. Now the Liberals are saying that they do not like the definition of essential services.

The problem is that the Liberal Party opposes this bill, and so does the Conservative Party. Whether the two old parties like it or not, this affects labour relations across Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

moved that Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). I would like to summarize it. Parliamentarians in this House are familiar with this bill as this is not the first time it has been introduced. We continue to hope that the Liberal and Conservative members will understand its importance.

On the one hand, the bill would prohibit employers governed by the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to carry out the duties of striking or locked out employees; on the other hand, it would require employers to maintain essential services. It also sets out fines for violations.

The best way to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of those who are building today's society is to truly respect their rights, starting with eliminating the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

Therefore, it is imperative that workers governed by federal legislation have the same rights as those governed by Quebec's labour laws, including the true right to strike. By employees under federal jurisdiction we mean those working in telecommunications, the media, the Internet, banking, ports, marine transportation, bridges, and air and rail transportation.

The Canada Labour Code must be amended and brought into line with the Quebec Labour Code. Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power. That is the objective of Bill C-386.

Unlike in Quebec, which has prohibited replacement workers since 1977, there is currently nothing in the Canada Labour Code that clearly and specifically prohibits the use of replacement workers.

Subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code contains a prohibition relating to replacement workers, but only where an employer uses replacement workers for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

However, a firm prohibition is essential for civilized bargaining to take place during a labour dispute and to promote industrial peace, and is also the cornerstone for establishing an equitable balance of power between employers and employees.

I will give some examples. Quebec workers in industries that are governed by the Canada Labour Code make up about 8% of the Quebec labour force.

According to Quebec's labour department, Quebec workers whose employer is federally regulated are almost always overrepresented in the number of days of work lost because of disputes.

While they account for just under 8% of Quebec's labour force, they experienced 18% of the person-days lost in 2004 and 22.6% of the person-days lost in 2003. In fact, a peak was reached in 2002. While 7.3% of Quebec workers were employed in federally regulated organizations, they accounted for 48% of days of work lost because of labour disputes.

In a nutshell, there were, on average, two and a half times more person-days lost in the last decade in labour disputes in Quebec involving workers governed by the Canada Labour Code than those workers represent in demographic weight.

This means that the disputes last longer and are therefore more violent. Such disputes are happening right now in Quebec, just as they have occurred over the past ten years. Consider the dispute at Sécur, or the Vidéotron dispute that lasted over six months and involved acts of sabotage. There was also the dispute at the Cargill grain elevator in Baie-Comeau that ended in 2003 after a three-year lockout imposed by the employer.

Let us not forget Radio Nord and the television networks: TVA, TQS in Abitibi and CBC. We saw this with the Journal de Québec and we are seeing it now with the Journal de Montréal.

From the beginning, the Conservative government has indicated its opposition by hiding behind doom and gloom scenarios because it lacks any real arguments, when the situation is clear in the details I just provided. In the statistics on days of work lost to labour disputes alone, we see that workers under the Canada Labour Code are without work two and a half times longer than workers governed by Quebec labour laws, which prohibit the use of replacement workers.

This is not the first time this type of bill has come before the House. The last time, we introduced Bill C-257, which passed at second reading. At report stage, the Liberals decided to reverse course, saying that the bill did not include measures on essential services. That is why the bill before us today includes the protection of essential services. We are prepared to do our part.

I will try to explain something. We are at a turning point in employer-employee relations. A number of major companies are located in my riding: Bell Helicopter, Bombardier, and Pratt & Whitney to name a few.

I am interested in labour relations. I recently attended a seminar on the sociology of work. The Conservatives, and even the Liberals, are not aware of the change taking place in our society. The new generations do not look at work the same way we do. I am part of the baby boom generation. Those who came before me are part of what sociologists call the veteran generation. After me come generations X and Y. Baby boomers like me, and the veterans who came before me—my father—have lived to work, while generations X and Y work to live. It is completely different. Who is right? Did we take our work too seriously? Perhaps we were afraid to lose our jobs because there were so many of us. Now, the young generations no longer have this mindset about work. They think more about their family. They think more and more about balancing work and family. I would add that employers who do not understand that will simply not survive. In other words, they will not be able to find employees to work for them.

I realize that the Conservatives and Liberals will always be regressive when it comes to replacement worker legislation. However, it is not helpful if we allow employers to use scabs or replacement workers to avoid resolving a conflict. We will see more and more businesses under federal jurisdiction having a hard time finding employees. We already see that in the interprovincial ground transportation sector. Employers have a very hard time recruiting employees, and the average age is very high. It is not very well known, but there is currently a shortage of airplane pilots. The new generation does not like the schedules and working conditions in the airline industry. That is a reality we will have to face. Banks are also having a hard time recruiting employees. You need only visit a branch to see how many retirees have been brought back on contract, because the banks could not fill their positions. The new generations want work environments that encourage personal development.

If we allow a business to use replacement workers during a conflict, and if there are lockouts, and jobs are lost in an economic sector for two, three or four years—that is not uncommon—there will be no new employees coming into businesses of that kind.

That is what is in store for companies under federal jurisdiction. It would be nice to keep managing as though people were all still veterans and baby boomers, but companies need to be careful because generations X and Y see work in a whole new way.

Here in the House of Commons, we have to be visionaries. It is time to make companies, particularly those in sectors under federal jurisdiction, understand that they cannot use replacement workers to avoid conflict resolution. The time has also come to add essential services. Businesses in certain sectors provide services to all communities. Those services should therefore be considered essential and even mandatory in some cases.

The Bloc Québécois has always been against forcing people to stay on the job and always will be, but it is important to negotiate essential services and maintain certain services. When disputes arise, it is important for employees to have the right to strike so they can make the employer understand that things are not working. That is the best way to move labour relations forward.

Over the past few months and the past year, a forestry company in my riding, the Fraser company in Thurso, placed itself under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because it did not have a recovery plan and had decided to sell the company.

I have been a member of the House since 2000. In my own way, I advised the president of the company union, who is a childhood friend. Every time he negotiated an agreement—there have been four since 2000—he asked me what I thought of the situation. I always advised him to the extent of my knowledge, but I am not clairvoyant.

I looked at what was happening at the Conference Board and at Statistics Canada in terms of employers' offers. I talked to him about it, and it was all very nice. Often, after the negotiations, I found that much of the advice I had given him had found its way into the final agreements.

This past year was a terrible one for the employees. Just prior to June of last year, they found out that their company was closing.

My friend called me again to tell me that it seemed to be over and to ask what I thought. I told him that “it ain't over 'til it's over.” Good old Piton Ruel of the Montreal Canadiens used to say that. The same can be said of an exercise that decides the fate of an industry.

The only advice I gave him was to approach the employer about renegotiating working conditions, in case the company were to start up again.

It is not easy for employees and an employer to talk together. It is easier when you know you will keep your job, but when you have already lost your job and no one knows if the company will survive, that makes it hard.

Believe it or not, they negotiated new terms for working conditions in the three or four months following the closure, even though the company was not in production mode. It was difficult. Salaries were reduced by 20% and retirement eligibility was moved from age 55 to 65, but it meant that the company was able to start up again. The company's buyer had no say in the working conditions that had been negotiated by the employer's representatives and the employees while the company was closed. That meant that the company could start up again.

If this company had been under federal jurisdiction and a lock-out had been imposed, these employees would have been laid off for three or four years and the union and employer would never have been able to start negotiations. The tension would have been so bad that they would have wanted the company to close because of the lay-offs.

Once again, I am asking my colleagues to vote in favour of this bill, which is a new way of looking at labour relations.

Admissibility of Amendments to Bill C-3

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of two amendments made in committee to Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs).

Without commenting on the merits of those amendments, I submit that they are beyond the scope of the bill and should be ruled out of order.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Citation 698(1) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne states that an amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill or beyond its scope. This issue has arisen on many occasions.

In a ruling on April 28, 1992, Speaker Fraser elaborated on the admissibility of amendments to bills referred to in committees after second reading:

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 this may be.

The Speaker does not get involved in committee issues except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, such as an amendment that is beyond the scope of a bill. In such cases, the Speaker is responsible for ruling on the admissibility of such amendments after the bill has been reported to the House. This is because the motion to refer the bill to committee after second reading establishes the principle and the scope of the bill. As a result, a committee report that is not consistent with that motion must be corrected.

On March 11, 2010, Bill C-3 was introduced. The bill's long title is an Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs). The court ruled that two 1985 amendments to the Indian Act failed to eliminate gender discrimination in the second and subsequent generations. Those amendments provided a way for Indian women who had lost status through marriage to regain it and made it possible for the children of those women to be registered.

On March 29, 2010, the House of Commons unanimously adopted Bill C-3 at second reading and referred it to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On April 23, 2010, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan gave notice of a motion of instruction to the committee, which stated that it has the power to expand the scope of Bill C-3 so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period. This motion clearly indicates that the opposition was aware that changing the provisions of the bill with respect to a grandchild born before 1985 would be beyond the scope of the bill.

On April 27, 2010, the member for Labrador moved the following amendment in committee, which stated:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 1 the following:

(a.1) that person was born prior to April 17, 1985 and is a direct descendant of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or of a person referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) as they read immediately prior to April 17, 1985;

Government counsel indicated in committee that:

...this amendment would take a radically different approach than the approach that is taken in Bill C-3. [Bill C-3] would amend 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act, which basically was the provision allowing the registration after 1985 of all the individuals who were previously entitled to registration. The [proposed] amendment would allow any person born before April 17, 1985 to be registered under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act if that person was able to identify an ancestor that was at the time of his or her death entitled to be registered, which obviously increases significantly the number of persons entitled to registration under the Indian Act.

The chair agreed with the advice of government counsel and ruled that the amendment was beyond the scope of Bill C-3 and was therefore inadmissible. The chair asked the committee procedural clerk to provide the committee with further detail on the ruling. The procedural clerk stated that the amendment exceeded the scope of the bill as it was approved in the House.

The member for Labrador acknowledged in committee that the amendment exceeded the scope of the court's decision by adding a new entitlement to registration by stating:

[The amendment is] not as reflective, maybe, as what was in the B.C. Court of Appeal's ruling, which was much narrower...It just expands the category of eligibility--

Notwithstanding the advice of government counsel, House staff and the acknowledgement of the member for Labrador, the opposition members of the committee voted to overturn the chair's ruling and adopted the amendment. The committee also made a change to the short title of the bill. The bill as introduced had a short title which stated: “This Act may be cited as the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act”. The opposition members of the committee voted to change the short title of the bill to read: “This act may be cited as the act amending certain definitions and registration provisions of the Indian Act”.

The chair ruled that this change was admissible because of the first amendment that I described. However, the chair emphasized that if the opposition members of the committee had not overturned his ruling that the first amendment I described was inadmissible, the amendment to clause 1 would also have been inadmissible. In this regard, page 770 and 771 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.

The change to the title of the bill is a further recognition that the first amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Precedents clearly support the inadmissibility of these changes.

On February 27, 2007, in the case of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), the Speaker ruled:

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...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.

Bill C-257 and Bill C-3 both have a particularly narrow scope that responds to narrow policy circumstances. As a result, the ruling on Bill C-257 would equally apply to Bill C-3.

I also cite a January 29, 2008, ruling with respect to an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In that case, the committee decided not to adopt an amendment that would have been beyond the scope of the bill.

In responding to a letter from a member, the Speaker agreed with the committee decision and stated that the amendment would have been beyond the scope of the bill and therefore would have been inadmissible. The Speaker stated:

The amendment was ruled inadmissible by the committee chair on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill...because it simply expanded the appeal provision already contained in the bill...in my opinion, the amendment was indeed inadmissible--

The April 23, 2010 motion proposing an instruction to the committee to expand the scope of the bill as well as the testimony of government counsel, House staff, the member for Labrador, and the committee chair's ruling all indicate that the amendment to Bill C-3 is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be so, I submit that the amendment to the short title would also need to be ruled out of order since it would no longer correspond to the provisions of the bill.

Canada Labour Code

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

moved that Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). I am also pleased to be seconded by the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who worked very hard in the previous Parliament to have a similar bill passed. I would like to quickly read the summary of Bill C-386.

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. It extends the obligation to maintain essential services.

The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

The bill would ensure that all workers who are fortunate enough to work in Quebec are subject to the same legislation, since replacement workers are prohibited in Quebec. I would like to provide a quick background on anti-scab legislation.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of all those who contribute to Quebec society on a daily basis is to show true respect for their rights, by preventing the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. Therefore, it is imperative that workers governed by federal labour legislation have the same rights as those governed by Quebec legislation, including a true right to strike.

The Canada Labour Code should be amended and brought into line with the Quebec labour code, so as to ban the use of replacement workers, or scabs, once and for all. Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power, and would keep tension on the picket lines to a minimum. That is the objective of Bill C-386, which would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers.

Unlike in Quebec, which has prohibited replacement workers since 1977, there is currently nothing in the Canada Labour Code that clearly and specifically prohibits the use of replacement workers.

Subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code contains a prohibition relating to replacement workers, but only where an employer uses replacement workers for the purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity. That prohibition is very weak, because to be entitled to use replacement workers, an employer need only continue to recognize the union in place and continue bargaining to demonstrate its good faith. As we see, it is very easy for employers to have access to replacement workers.

A firm prohibition, which is what Bill C-386 proposes, is essential, however, for civilized bargaining to take place during a labour dispute and to promote industrial peace, and is also the cornerstone for establishing an equitable balance of power between employers and employees.

Workers in industries that are governed by the Canada Labour Code, such as telecommunications—workers in Internet businesses, cable companies and cell phone companies—and banks, ports, bridges, airports or Canada Post, who make up about 8% of the Quebec labour force, are therefore at a disadvantage when they have to bargain with their employer, and as a result they get dragged into longer strikes.

According to figures from the Quebec Ministère du Travail, for instance, Quebec workers whose employer is federally regulated are practically always overrepresented in the number of days of work lost. While they account for just under 8% of Quebec’s labour force, they experienced 18% of the person-days lost in 2004 and 22.6% of the person-days lost in 2003. In fact, a peak was reached in 2002. While 7.3% of Quebec workers were employed in federally regulated organizations, they accounted for 48% of days of work lost because of labour disputes.

In a nutshell, there were, on average, two and a half times more person-days lost in the last decade in labour disputes in Quebec involving workers governed by the Canada Labour Code than those workers represent in demographic weight. Obviously, this translates into longer and more violent disputes when the employer is able to hire strikebreakers.

Remember the three-month dispute at Sécur, the Vidéotron dispute that lasted over 10 months and involved acts of sabotage, and the dispute at the Cargill grain elevator in Baie-Comeau that ended in 2003 after a three-year lockout. And let us not forget the unionized workers at Radio-Nord Communications, employees of the three Abitibi television stations, TVA, TQS and Radio-Canada, and the two radio stations in northwestern Quebec, who were on strike for over 20 months.

The Conservative government stated its opposition at the outset, and having no genuine arguments, retreated behind apocalyptic scenarios that have nothing to do with reality. Quebec has had legislation prohibiting replacement workers for 30 years, and there have been no catastrophes.

In spite of Conservative opposition, the Bloc Québécois was able to have Bill C-257 passed on second reading, and got it as far as the report stage. That was the first time an anti-strikebreaker bill had made it that far. The Liberals, who had supported the bill in principle on second reading, ultimately did an about-face and said the bill would not have guaranteed that essential services would be maintained.

The Canada Labour Code already includes provisions that require both the employer and unionized employees to 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 Conservative government, and now the Liberal Party, have done their best to ignore these provisions.

In the March 21, 2007, vote on Bill C-257, during the last Parliament, the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the exception of some Liberal members from Quebec, joined forces to defeat the bill by a vote of 177 to 122. It is important to remember that this Minister of Labour, the same one who fiercely condemned the Bloc Québécois bill and made all kinds of irrational arguments, supported a bill to prohibit replacement workers in 1990. The Liberals tried to avoid completely losing face by introducing a bill similar to the one drafted by the Bloc Québécois. There was not enough time to vote on that bill before the election was called.

I want everyone to understand that we are making a direct connection between the Conservatives' opposition to anti-scab legislation and special bills because the right to negotiate is a basic right. However, Quebeckers also believe that the right to balanced bargaining power is a basic right.

I am pleased to be discussing Bill C-386 here in the House. The Speaker recently received a letter dated December 1 from the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications. This association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications, wrote to the Speaker. It is worth hearing what they had to say. The association wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons to recommend that he vote against Bill C-386. This is a group of employers under federal jurisdiction. Apparently, it is an organization that strongly opposes the rights currently in force in Quebec. I will list some of the members: Air Canada, WestJet, VIA Rail, Canada Post, Fedex, Iron Ore, NAV CANADA, Purolator, Telus, Canadian Pacific, the Airports Association and Bell Canada.

The association does not include banks, which have employees under federal jurisdiction, but they have their own association. It is very interesting to read what the association wrote to the Speaker of the House to convince him to vote against the bill. I will read it in English.

They believe it is bad public policy because it would shift the balance of power in collective bargaining overwhelmingly in favour of the unions.

That is like saying that it is the employers who hold the power right now, and if this bill were ever introduced, it would shift the power to unions. This is despite the fact that the bill has evolved. Essential services have been added. Despite the fact that this works very well in Quebec, there is always this direct opposition from employers. This is important.

They thought it would be good to form an association, the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications, to address this. Their letter indicates that 14 anti-scab bills have been introduced since 2000, and they are quite proud that none of those bills has passed.

In the end, they always win. It is clear in their correspondence, and in 1977 Quebec passed anti-scab legislation to ensure some degree of balance.

So employers form an association and send letters to say that if this ever changes, the unions will have all the power. This means that right now, it is the employers that have all the power. But anti-scab legislation, legislation that would prohibit replacement workers and ensure that essential services would be maintained, is a form of balance. This has definitely been proven in Quebec. Once again, it is a difficult situation. When 92% of unionized employees in a nation like Quebec are covered by anti-scab legislation, and the other 8% fall under the Canada Labour Code and do not have the same ability to negotiate or enjoy the same labour relations, this creates a clear imbalance.

Earlier I gave some examples of labour disputes that have occurred, of delays in negotiations, and the use of scabs to allow the work to continue and allow the business to operate as it did before without having to use the employees. Of course, this only fuels the debates.

This often provokes nasty situations. Indeed, people are very unhappy when no progress is being made in negotiations. The employer continues to count on replacement workers to carry on its operations. At this time, in any civilized employer-employee relationship, anti-scab legislation with the maintenance of essential services is necessary. This is what we are proposing in the bill I am introducing here today in my name and on behalf of the Bloc.

We are not engaging in these debates and making these proposals without support. There is a real consensus in the union movement to support this anti-scab bill. This legislation is supported by the Canadian Labour Congress; the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec; the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN); the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE); the Public Service Alliance of Canada; the Brotherhoods of Locomotive Engineers of Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Alberta; the Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec; the Ontario Teachers' Federation; the Congress of Union Retirees Canada; the United Food and Commercial Workers Union; the Manitoba Federation of Labour; and the Graphic Communications International Union.

We have support to offset the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, this association of federally regulated employers that has formed and is sending letters to the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is only natural that there should be a balance. As the letter I read earlier said, things are currently weighted in favour of the employers. It is only natural that unionized workers should want a better balance. That is why Bill C-386 is the answer. It prohibits replacement workers and maintains essential services.

I call on all the members of this House to support Bill C-386.

Replacement Workers

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to this motion.

Today the House is debating a motion tabled by my hon. colleague, proposing to make significant changes to key sections of the Canada Labour Code. This motion, if passed, will ban the right of federal employers to use replacement workers during a labour stoppage.

These proposed measures should not be treated lightly. This motion is the most recent of a series of attempts by some members of the House to try to bring wholesale changes to federal labour law in Canada without consultation or compromise.

Let me be clear. We remain firmly opposed to the motion, just as we have been opposed to similar legislation or legislative efforts introduced previously in the House. Our position is clear. We do not support the proposed amendments in Motion No. 294, and there are four compelling reasons why.

First, our modernized Canada Labour Code works well. It provides adequate protection to employees involved in a legal work stoppage.

Second, the motion, if passed, will disrupt the balance that was achieved when the Canada Labour Code was modernized back in 1999. It will leave federal employers unable to operate at minimal levels during a strike or lockout. This in turn could result in productivity losses to our national economy at a time when Canadians can least afford it.

Third, it would make labour relations more adversarial in the country. Energies and resources should be focused on solving labour relation issues in a peaceful manner. This is a situation that no one can afford to have happen during times of economic uncertainty both in Canada and around the world.

Fourth, we do not see any compelling evidence to support the argument that a ban on the use of replacement workers would reduce the number or duration of work stoppages and benefit workers in a federal jurisdiction.

As I mentioned earlier, the motion is the latest in a series of similar legislative efforts. It is worth taking a moment to take note of that fact, because they share some of the common characteristics and deficiencies of previous legislative efforts over the last number of years.

Over the past two decades, the House had debated numerous private members' bills on the matter of replacement workers in the federal domain.

First, there was Bill C-201, tabled in April of 1989. Next, there was Bill C-317, tabled in June of 1995. There were two more attempts between 2002 and 2005 in the form of Bill C-328 and Bill C-263, the latter of which was defeated after second reading. Next, there was Bill C-257, tabled in May of 2006. It was also defeated on third reading. Finally, there was the predecessor to the motion before us today, which was Bill C-415. It died on the order paper at the dissolution of Parliament in September of 2008.

All these bills were defeated because a majority of members of the House recognized that what each bill proposed would be ineffective and would have negative effects on labour relations and on the economic health of Canada.

A common characteristic shared by some of the more recent legislative efforts is that they do not fully consider just how vital it is that a middle ground be maintained between unions and employers on the matter of replacement workers. They overlook what was accomplished when the Canada Labour Code was modernized in 1999. The existing replacement worker provision in section 94(2.1) of the Labour Code was the product of much consultation with stakeholders. It also provided an ever important characteristic, one that is the backbone of this country, and that is compromise.

Existing provisions do permit employers to at least try to carry on basic operations during work stoppages. However, it also protects the union's right to strike and its bargaining authority. The balance would have been lost if any of these private member's bills had been passed by the House to eventually become law.

Motion No. 294 before this House today is no different in terms of the disruption that it would pose to labour relations and the economic health of our nation. As with the private member's bills that have preceded it, this motion stands in complete opposition to the well-established facts about replacement worker legislation.

I will review these key facts in the House right now.

First, legislation of that nature is rare in Canada. Only two provinces have legislation that restricts the right of employers to use the services of replacement workers during work stoppages. Quebec implemented its legislation in 1977. In 1993, British Columbia passed its own regulations. Ontario had enacted similar provisions in 1993 but they were repealed in 1995.

That leads me to my second point of fact. After nearly two decades of experience with this kind of legislation in Quebec and in British Columbia, the results are not encouraging for Canadian workers. Statistical data analysis provided by the labour program suggests both of these provinces continue to experience work stoppages of long duration and the length of their work stoppages is not that much different from other jurisdictions in Canada that do not have the replacement worker legislation.

For instance, in the period from 2005 to 2007, the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 43.8 days compared to 43.6 days in Ontario and 41 days in the federal jurisdiction. This data supports independent findings which maintain that statutory prohibitions on the use of replacement workers are not necessarily effective in reducing the duration of a work stoppage.

That takes me to the third key fact that I want to share with the House this evening. Since the 1980s, over 90% of disputes in federal jurisdiction have been settled without a work stoppage, and that is often with the assistance of federal mediators and officers. In the majority of cases, employers do not employ external replacement workers to keep their operations functioning. Instead, they reassign management and other non-bargaining unit personnel.

What does Motion No. 294 seek to accomplish? In light of the facts that I have shared with the House, it is unclear what the drafters of Motion No. 294 are seeking to accomplish with this latest in a series of legislative attempts to drastically revise the Canada Labour Code, the outcome of which would essentially outlaw any use of replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction. It cannot be to bring about balance and fairness to labour relations in Canada. The proposed amendments would undo what has been achieved over the past decade. It cannot be a solution to help reduce the number of work stoppages. The experiences in the two provinces with anti-replacement worker legislation show us that they continue to struggle with lengthy work stoppages. It cannot be a solution that would help boost Canada's ability in today's competitive environment.

The proposed amendments call for changes that would bring instability and uncertainty to Canadian labour relations and would do so in the midst of significant global economic difficulties.

The facts and the risks posed by anti-replacement worker legislation are just as clear today as they were in the past. As with each previous legislative attempt introduced in this House, this motion calls for amendments that would ultimately harm workers and undermine the labour peace that both sides have enjoyed for years.

For those reasons, I remain firmly opposed to this motion.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour and pleasure to talk about Motion No. 294 to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers, thus relegating them to a chapter in history, and a dark one at that.

On 11 separate occasions, the Bloc Québécois has introduced bills to harmonize the Canada Labour Code with the Quebec Labour Code. On 11 separate occasions, the Liberals and the Conservatives have worked together to defeat those bills. We came closest to passing a bill on the subject at hand during the last government. Unfortunately, when it reached report stage, the Liberals listened to their leader, the one who replaced Paul Martin, because they were so worried about Bay Street.

The day after they realized that our bill would not make it past second reading to third reading and then to the Senate before being passed into law, the Liberals introduced a very similar bill in which they changed just two words to try to save face. However, when the time came to place it on the orders of the day for debate in the House of Commons, it was delayed for so long that the sponsor, the labour critic, was replaced by another member who was strongly opposed to the bill. They saved face and remained true to form. Dark blue or red, they are cut from the same cloth and they all have it in for workers.

It is also important to remember that the first time the Bloc Québécois introduced this bill, the NDP voted against it because the nasty separatists were introducing a bill. Fortunately, they saw the light, which I hope the Liberals and Conservatives will do one day, and they supported us the other 10 times. We want people to know that. We must avoid repeating the ignominy of violating the rights of striking or locked-out workers who are out picketing while people are taking their jobs so that the employer keeps turning a profit while the workers are forced to live on the meagre strike pay they get, if they get any at all. When this happens, the two sides are not negotiating on a level playing field.

We must also remember that when the previous government was in power, 19 Conservatives voted to refer the bill to committee. But when the time came to take a formal stand, only one stood up and the other 18 toed the party line and voted against workers.

In Quebec, 7% of workers are likely to fall victim to strikebreakers, because they are governed by the Canada Labour Code. In 1977, during the first term of the PQ government of René Lévesque, a sovereigntist government that cared about Quebec and its workers, the National Assembly passed an anti-scab law, which is still in effect today. It is still in effect, and it has shortened strikes. During negotiations, it has become imperative to find a way to avoid a strike. But in sectors under federal jurisdiction, strikes took place after 1977, and they were often extremely violent. People crossed the picket lines and took food out of the mouths of the strikers' children. The strikers negotiated in good faith while these people took away their livelihood.

And all under the eyes of the federal government. That is completely unacceptable. Harmony is needed and the Bloc Québécois is the party of Quebeckers. Since 1993 we have held a majority of the seats in the House of Commons because the people of Quebec trust the Bloc Québécois, because we fight so that Quebeckers will have better living conditions and to make sure that the money sent to the federal government, as long as we are in this federation, comes back to us so that it respects the consensus in the National Assembly of Quebec.

Anti-scab legislation is essential if we are to have civilized bargaining when disputes occur. In fact, there is no real, full recognition of the right to strike unless the use of scabs, the people who take away workers’ jobs during a strike, is prohibited.

In October 2003, the Bloc Québécois introduced a petition with 46,000 signatures supporting the position of workers and calling on the government to enact anti-scab legislation.

Under the last Conservative government—you were there, Mr. Speaker—we will recall what the Minister of Labour at the time, the member for Jonquière—Alma, had to say. In 1990 he supported an anti-scab bill, when he was an MP in the Mulroney government. He voted in favour of that legislation. And then, when he became a minister, he turned his back on workers.

I was the sponsor of Bill C-257, to introduce anti-scab legislation. In the Human Resources Committee I heard apocalyptic tales, things that simply could not be believed. My stars, it was worthy of a B-grade horror movie. He said that if the baggage handlers at an airport went on strike, Canada’s economy would be paralyzed. Any more and he would have said that the earth would stop rotating on its axis. There was a provision for maintaining essential services.

For a minister to say things like that amounts to saying just anything at all. He said that if telephone operators went on strike, 911 would cease to function. Any more and he would have had the crime rate quintupling or more, because that falls under telecommunications, and that is under federal jurisdiction.

He did go farther. He spoke directly to the Liberals in committee and told them that when they returned to power—and that indicates just how much confidence he has in his government—recess would be over because of the separatists in the Bloc and the New Democrats and they would have labour relations problems, and that is completely false.

British Columbia has also had anti-scab legislation since 1993, and Quebec has had it since 1977. I hope that Quebeckers who fly the red or dark blue colours today remember that this bill has brought about a much healthier labour relations climate in Quebec and much less violence in labour relations situations under Quebec’s jurisdiction. It covers 93% of workers in Quebec.

I hope that members will have their hearts in the right place and will allow the other 7% of workers in Quebec to enjoy the benefits of anti-scab legislation. At the same time, and as fallout from that, I am proud to say that Canadians throughout Canada will benefit from it as well.

Committee Amendments to Bill C-21

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek a ruling on whether two amendments to Bill C-21, adopted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, are in order. I submit that these two amendments are actually out of order because they are beyond the scope of Bill C-21 that was set at second reading.

Bill C-21 was referred to committee after second reading, as we all know, and page 654 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

I would like to emphasize that the bill was adopted at second reading and had a very narrow scope. Namely, it contained just three specific items: first, it repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; second, it provided for a parliamentary review of the repeal of section 67 within five years; and third, it included a transitional provision concerning the implementation of the repeal of section 67.

Page 661 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled by the Chairman to be out of order. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then considered by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

This passage flows from a Speaker's ruling from 1993 when the members of a committee rejected the decision of their chair, who had ruled three proposed amendments to a bill to be out of order. The amendments were then adopted by the committee and included in the report to the House.

Following a point of order raised in the House in respect of this matter, the Speaker upheld the ruling of the chair and ordered that the three amendments be struck from the bill.

Marleau and Montpetit, on page 662, also cites a 1992 ruling by Speaker Fraser. It reads in part:

“When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is...restricted in its examination in a number of ways...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”.

The first amendment to which I wish to bring to the Speaker's attention is an interpretive clause, which was added as a new clause, clause 1.2, to the bill. This amendment was ruled inadmissible by the chair because it is beyond the scope of Bill C-21.

During the committee's consideration of this amendment, the member for Nunavut stated:

I don't believe we are asking for too much beyond the scope...I want to take it into the House of Commons for further consideration and see how the ruling would be on that in the House of Commons.

Notwithstanding the acknowledged uncertainty of the member for Nunavut with respect to the admissibility of this amendment, the chair's decision was overruled by the committee, which then adopted this amendment.

The second amendment to which I wish to draw to the Speaker's attention is a non-derogation clause, which was also added as a new clause, clause 1.1, to this bill. While the chair did not raise admissibility concerns with the amendment, this new clause clearly adds a new purpose to the bill and is therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-21.

As I have noted, the purpose of this bill is to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Since the bill is silent on how the Canadian Human Rights Act should be interpreted and applied to first nations, I submit that the amendment to add an interpretive clause and the amendment to add a non-derogation clause exceeds the scope of this bill.

Both of these amendments are beyond the scope of the bill by attempting to prescribe how the Canadian Human Rights Act should be interpreted and applied to first nations people on reserve. Since the purpose of the bill is to bring first nations people the basic human rights that every other Canadian enjoys, I question why the opposition would want to water them down.

What is more disturbing is that the opposition was willing to achieve this goal by overriding a fundamental principle of parliamentary legislative practice. It overruled the chair, who rightly ruled an amendment out of order because it went beyond the scope of this bill. These amendments attempt to bring back much of the intent of section 67, which, of course, the bill proposed to repeal.

I believe this view has been supported by the Speaker in his ruling of February 27, 2007 on Bill C-257, which states:

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...They argue that these amendments are admissible for they only make clearer the bill's provisions...However, I fear that their views are precisely what Mr. Speaker Fraser meant in the 1992 ruling...when he warned members against being led into the temptation of amendments not contemplated in the original bill.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2008 in a decision on the admissibility of an amendment that was beyond the scope of Bill C-3, the Speaker ruled:

The amendment was ruled inadmissible by the committee chair on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. It was contended that on the contrary his amendment was within the scope of the bill because it simply expanded the appeal provision already contained in the bill.

Admittedly, the hon. member’s amendment deals with this same principle, namely the right to appeal, but where it goes beyond the scope of the bill is in relation to the conditions under which the appeal may be made...Consequently, even if the principle remains the same, its scope is clearly expanded.

Any attempt to establish how the Canadian Human Rights Act is interpreted and applied to first nations people should be seen as an expansion of the scope of this bill since this clearly introduces new issues which were not part of Bill C-21 as originally introduced.

I would like to conclude by stating that these two amendments, particularly the nature of the interpretive provision, would undermine the universality of human rights principles embodied in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the very purpose of Bill C-21, which was simply to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Clearly, these two are beyond the very narrow scope of the original bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you agree that these amendments are out of order, I would suggest that they be removed from the bill, as you did in your previous ruling on February 27, 2007.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm amazed at the overwhelming sense of fairness and consistency the NDP picked in this particular issue. Depending on what committee it's at--I know that certainly for HR it's always been the case that we deal with the business of government or private members' bills; that takes precedence all the time. When Bill C-257 came forward, even though we were working on studies, it didn't matter; it was very quick, and easy to push aside what we were doing. Certainly, in the name of fairness and consistency across all committees, most committees handle it this way already.

I would also take into consideration my colleague's remarks. Obviously if we're working on a report there should be some type of mechanism whereby we talk about what priorities to take, but certainly, as is the case in every other committee, bills always take precedence.

Once again, this is a routine motion that happens in every committee.

Canada Labour Code

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating the contents of Bill C-415, legislation that would bar the ability of employers governed by federal regulation to use replacement workers during a labour stoppage.

Earlier this year we debated a similar legislative effort, Bill C-257, which sought to achieve the same goal. I cannot help but think of Yogi Berra's famous line, “It's déjà vu all over again”.

With Bill C-257, I think there have been 11 previous attempts, and this would be the 12th attempt, to try to move the yardstick in this labour negotiation effort. The previous 11 attempts have all been defeated in Parliament.

There are some serious shortcomings to Bill C-415. It is really no different from its predecessor, both in substance and in the threat it poses to the good health of Canada's economy and to labour relations. Both the current and previous bills call for an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. They contain identical summary paragraphs. Despite assurances by supporters of the bill, I see nothing in what has been proposed that could be considered an improvement on what we debated earlier this year, a bill which we opposed vigorously and which was defeated in Parliament.

Drafters of this bill have added a provision that would have us believe the issue of essential services has been resolved. However, it is a very complicated issue when we deal with essential services. We are talking about services in the transportation sector, particularly, interprovincial transportation, communications, banking and emergency services that are federally regulated.

However, would Bill C-415 define what is meant by “essential workers”? My answer is it would not.

Bill C-415 would not create a new category of essential services. Nor would it designate a group of workers to perform the essential work. There would be no material change at all to the existing requirements in the Canada Labour Code to maintain services or activities that are necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or the health of the public. In other words, the bill would not make any new services essential.

Under the current provision on essential services, questions have to be answered by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when the parties cannot agree on what services have to be maintained. The board is then required to make a determination on what is essential to ensure the health and safety of the public.

I will wrap up with this statement. It took the board seven years to make that determination with respect to a case involving NAV CANADA and its unions.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that Bill C-415 addresses is a very complex and difficult one. As we have heard across the House today, it is fraught with different viewpoints and challenges.

I think all of us here would say that we are very supportive of the collective bargaining process. We want to make sure workers' rights are protected. We want to make sure that people have freedom of association. We clearly want to make sure that workers are not abused in the manner as happened in British Columbia in some cases, and about which my colleague spoke. On the other hand we have a responsibility as legislators to make sure that things are not done that would harm society in general, and I include the workers who would be affected by the bill.

At the heart of this issue is a balance one wants to strike. On the one hand there are the rights of the workers to ensure that their concerns are dealt with effectively, that an employer cannot use the situation to be abusive against the workers. On the other hand we have to ensure that essential services are protected in our society. If they are not, if those services fall apart, it could damage everybody. Those services form the spine of our country.

This bill affects federally regulated services, such as transportation, banking, air transportation and telecommunications. Imagine if any of those services were affected. For example, if baggage handlers were to go on strike, it would grind the whole air transportation system across the country to a halt. It happened in trucking. Imagine if it happened in telecommunications. Imagine what would happen with respect to hospital services and access to emergency services. Those would all fall apart.

It is interesting that there are two definitions. Emergency services have been defined as the operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public. That is how essential services were termed in the previous bill to this one, Bill C-257. It is a definition that the NDP likes very well.

I would submit that definition is far too narrow and would not deal with true essential services. They ought to be defined in the following way, and I will take a leaf out of the Quebec labour code, section 111.17. The Quebec labour code very clearly states that essential services are “a service to which the public is entitled”.

The distinction may seem subtle, but it is very important. Imagine that someone was working in a union dealing with a very difficult labour negotiation with an employer involved in banking, telecommunications, trucking or air transportation. If the service ground to a halt, what would happen to those federally regulated employees who could not receive their cheques? What would happen if there was a family emergency and they could not travel? What would happen if the company could not move the goods and services that are required for our country to continue to be effective economically?

All workers would be affected negatively, including the ones who this pieces of legislation is supposed to address. That is the conundrum we have in the House. How do we ensure that we protect workers while ensuring that those same workers are protected in terms of their health, welfare, safety and economy? If people cannot bank, travel or use telecommunications, it means that everybody in our country is hurt, including the people who are directly affected by the so-called labour strike.

It is important for the workers who are listening to this debate to understand the distinction. Nobody in the House is against them. All of us want to ensure that we are able to serve them and to make sure that workers' concerns and rights are addressed effectively and in a timely fashion and that no employer can use the power of a legal structure against the workers.

I remember in my province when the hospital employee unions were on strike. I was on the picket line. I was working with the people on the picket line and their union representatives to liaise with our provincial government, to come up with solutions that would work well for the workers who were on strike, workers who were working in the hospitals treating patients so that the situation would be resolved quickly and effectively.

Maybe one of the solutions is binding final offer arbitration. That could be incorporated.

Another group that needs to be spoken for is the RCMP. The RCMP, understandably, cannot form a union, but its members also do not have the power as a group to articulate concerns for their collective. RCMP members work day in and day out in the service of our country, as all police forces do across the country. They give their lives sometimes for us and they do it with courage and distinction across our nation. They have concerns also, but the men and women in the RCMP who serve us cannot articulate those concerns in a way that is productive.

In looking at this bill, maybe we could look at all workers, including RCMP officers and federally regulated employers, who form part of the spine of our nation. We should come up with solutions that will enable all workers to have their concerns addressed in a timely and effective fashion.

With respect to the Telus workers, clearly what some of them were subjected to was dead wrong and should never be allowed in our country. I am talking of the use of workers from the United States and the types of abuses that took place against workers on the picket lines. That should not ever happen.

The concerns of the workers need to be addressed in a timely fashion and in a way that does not affect the industry itself, because if it affects the industry, it affects the spine of our nation and if it affects the spine of our nation, it can be catastrophic to every single person in our country, including people who are working for an affected employer and are supposedly going on strike.

The NDP should stop hiding behind its rhetoric and start talking about workers instead of unions. That is, in effect, what it is doing. That party's rhetoric belies its true colours. Oftentimes it talks about supporting union leadership instead of about supporting workers. Maybe the NDP should talk about workers having the right to a ballot vote as opposed to raising their hands and the ability to have right to work legislation.

I looked at this issue a few years ago and it is interesting. Right to work legislation is fascinating. When workers have right to work legislation in their jurisdictions, they are able to earn, on average, $3,500 more per person. They are also able to control their unions a bit better in their best interests. It also enables union leadership to work better for the people it represents.

The government should look into these types of solutions. The NDP should consider championing solutions that work for the betterment of the worker, not necessarily for the political structures that those workers labour under. The NDP ought to listen to some of the concerns of workers' who are in unions about the structures that some of them labour under. Some union leaderships are wonderful and work very effectively for the people they represent, but there are some that do not. There are clearly structures in our country that work well for employees and other structures that do not. I strongly encourage all members of the House to look into that.

On the issue of labour, the government needs to come up with a plan. In short, there is a critical labour shortage as the population ages. Right now, 16% of Canadians are over the age of 65. That will double in the next 25 years. There are critical shortages in medicine, the skills trades and other areas. The government should increase the percentage of people coming in to the skilled trades workforce. It should expand the workforce through enabling those who are older to stay in the workforce. It should work with the provinces in terms of skilled retraining, access to training, and such.

I encourage all members of the House to work together for solutions that will work well for employees from coast to coast.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

This is legislation that New Democrats believe is long overdue. We have debated it many times, have had many votes on it and it is time we actually passed the legislation.

New Democrats will be supporting the legislation again in the House, as we did when we supported the last attempt to deal with the issue of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts in federal jurisdictions, which was Bill C-257 in the first session of this Parliament, a bill tabled by the member for Gatineau.

Our resolve to see this issue dealt with successfully is very strong. We want the legislation to go through because prohibiting replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout is an essential piece of guaranteeing labour peace and economic stability in Canada. This would be an important piece of legislation.

The fight for workers' rights has been a long one in Canada and the key victories in that have been the freedom of association, free collective bargaining and the ability to withhold services if collective bargaining fails. Those are very essential to our labour movement and to workers in Canada. It is also important to workers in federal jurisdictions.

This legislation, which deals with replacement workers or strikebreakers in a legal strike or lockout, would level the playing and ensure some fairness between employers and workers in that difficult situation when there is a strike or a lockout.

We have had other attempts at this. I mentioned the one by the member for Gatineau. The member for Vancouver Island North, the New Democrat member, also has legislation tabled regarding the issue of replacement workers. If the bill should fail again, we will be on it to ensure that we have another opportunity to debate this important issue and, hopefully, finally get this legislation through Parliament.

The ability to negotiate fair wages, a safe workplace, pay equity, health care and pensions is crucial to many families in Canada. Those who are lucky enough to be represented by a union and have a collective agreement know the importance of that collective agreement to all of those issues and to their lives here in Canada. Therefore, we want to ensure there is a level playing field when it comes to collective bargaining and strikes and lockouts in Canada.

If I were a Liberal, I would be embarrassed to table this kind of legislation. I think the member for Davenport should be embarrassed to table this legislation because if it were not for the Liberals changing their votes the last time this came before the House, the vote on Bill C-257, we may well have been farther down the road and have enacted this kind of legislation.

Unfortunately, when Bill C-257 came to a vote in the first session of this Parliament, 29 Liberals, who had supported it at second reading, switched their vote from yea to nay. That meant that almost 80 Liberals and 20 Conservatives voted in favour of this at second reading but many of them changed their vote so that close to 30 Liberals, including the Leader of the Opposition, followed the government's lead to kill the bill.

That is tragic because we were so close to seeing this important change made in our labour law in Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberals played a major role in seeing that attempt go down the drain.

The Liberals should be embarrassed for tabling this legislation and embarrassed for tabling it the day after the previous legislation went down to defeat. There is just no excuse for that. We will be watching very carefully to see what happens with the Liberals when the bill comes to a vote.

Prohibiting replacement workers in a strike or lockout is very important because two provincial jurisdictions in Canada have long-standing experience with exactly this kind of legislation.

Quebec passed legislation to this effect in 1977. British Columbia passed legislation banning the use of replacement workers in 1993.

It was a New Democratic government that introduced that legislation in 1993 in British Columbia. The interesting thing is that there has been a change of government in British Columbia. Now the B.C. Liberal Party is in power, a coalition of conservative parties in British Columbia. They have made many changes to labour law in British Columbia that have been very controversial and I think detrimental to working people in British Columbia.

One piece of legislation that they did not change is the legislation regarding replacement workers. Even the conservative-liberal B.C. government knows that legislation has improved the labour climate in British Columbia. It has improved the ability of labour and management to come to successful agreements. That has been a good thing for the economy of British Columbia.

I do not think there is any excuse for saying that this kind of legislation will ultimately hurt the economy. We have two excellent examples, British Columbia and Quebec, where it has had exactly the opposite effect and where it is supported soundly by employers and workers because they know it has a positive effect when it comes to settling an agreement.

Replacement workers increase tension in labour disputes. They prolong strikes. They add to instability in the search for a settlement in a strike or a lockout. None of those things do anything to benefit the economy. None of those things do anything to benefit the families of management and workers who are affected by a strike or lockout.

Taking this step to ban replacement workers, to ban strike breaking is a very significant one to ensure that there will be a successful settlement.

This morning as we were listening to other members in this debate, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore pointed out that the use of replacement workers is also a very dangerous practice from the perspective of the health and safety of those workers who are sent in to do jobs that they know very little about. They are often sent in to operate dangerous machinery or to work in difficult situations without the appropriate training for that kind of work.

If for no other reason than the concern about the people who are sent in as replacement workers and for their safety, I would hope that other members of the House might support this legislation. It is a minor issue, but I think it is an important issue to note.

Many Liberals used the excuse that they were voting against Bill C-257 in the first session of this Parliament because it did not deal with the question of essential services. That is in fact not the case. Essential services are dealt with in the Canada Labour Code. Section 87.4 states that unions and employers prior to a dispute should work on the issue of designation of essential services. That is already a provision of the Canada Labour Code and not something that was missing from the legislation.

It is also possible under the existing Canada Labour Code for the Minister of Labour to ask that essential services be designated at the time of a strike or lockout.

The Liberals were hiding behind a false issue at the time because the current Canada Labour Code speaks very clearly about the designation of essential services. There was no doubt that it was already dealt with. To say this new bill was necessary because of that I think is completely erroneous.

Shortly after I was elected in 2004 there was a lockout of Telus telecommunications workers in British Columbia and Alberta. It was a very serious lockout. Replacement workers, outsourcing, contracting out and strikebreakers were all used in that strike. It increased the tension and the length of that strike dramatically. It had a serious effect on the workers involved, on the managers involved and on the morale of that workplace. It also was a significant hardship for the community. I spoke to a number of small businesses that were directly affected because of that lengthy lockout and the tension surrounding it.

In this corner of the House, New Democrats will be strongly supporting legislation that bans the use of replacement workers in strikes or lockouts in the federal jurisdiction.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, during the last session of Parliament, the opposition members repeatedly tried to convince this House to adopt a bill that would make changes to the Canada Labour Code, with a view to prohibiting federal employers from using replacement workers during a work stoppage.

Our government has opposed such measures in the past, and we are opposed now to Bill C-415, which is before this House. This bill may include a new provision, but the wording remains essentially the same as in previous versions introduced in the House. Most importantly, the threat this bill poses to the health of the economy and labour relations in Canada is more real than ever.

The members of this House who support this bill say that it represents a real improvement over the previous version, Bill C-257. However, the facts do not support this assertion. The bill's supporters claim that adding the concept of essential services to Bill C-415 helps make up for the serious deficiencies in the previous bill. They also state that this bill would appropriately meet the need to maintain services essential to public health and safety in the event of a labour dispute, but none of these arguments holds water. In fact, this bill is no different from its predecessor in its goal or its consequences.

Adding the word “essential” to an existing section of the act, which already requires that the employer and the union maintain services deemed necessary to prevent an immediate danger to public health and safety, does not change the essence of this provision. Bill C-415 does not define “essential services”, which could lead to confusion and uncertainty. One has to wonder why the drafters of this bill did not provide a clear definition of the concept, instead of leaving it to Parliament. As legislators, we could have been accountable to Canadians.

Advocates of Bill C-415 do not know how this bill will affect the health of Canada's economy either. In the meantime, our government has very clearly stated why it is opposed to this type of bill.

As we have already said in this House, attempts to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers could have serious consequences for Canadian companies, industries and workers.

The provisions of Bill C-415 state that only managers of a company affected by a labour strike are authorized to replace employees who are on strike or who have been locked out. A few months ago, Canadians saw for themselves the consequences of a work stoppage affecting a federal government service.

In February 2007, when CN workers went on strike, Canadians clearly saw the devastating effects of a work stoppage on a fundamental service in a federally regulated sector. Merchandise was no longer being transported across the country, as it should have been. In just a few days, this is what happened.

Sawmills on the Pacific coast were faced with the possibility of laying off employees or closing their doors. Assembly plants in Ontario ended up with surplus stock. The same thing happened at the port of Vancouver. Producers from the Prairies had to find new ways to send their products to market. Remote communities had to wait for vital supplies to be delivered. The Canadian Wheat Board was paying $300,000 a day to keep ships in port until the grain arrived.

This brings me to my next argument on the shortcomings of Bill C-415. It does not protect services in the sectors regulated by the federal government that are essential to Canada's economy.

I am talking about sectors affecting a wide range of products that are fundamental to businesses, industries and the growth of this country, namely, transportation by rail, air and land, the ports, certain telecommunication and broadcast services, financial services and commuter services in certain regions.

These services are fundamental to our economy, but they have not been considered essential in the general meaning of the word. This bill does nothing to ensure that railway services or telecommunication services are maintained during a work stoppage. Canadians have learned from recent experience with the CN strike the extent to which a labour dispute in a federal sector can quickly harm other sectors of the economy. With a direct ban on hiring replacement workers, a work stoppage in one sector of Canada's transportation network could have serious consequences. What would be the cost? Who would assume responsibility for damages in the event of a work stoppage? Bill C-415 does not provide any answers to these questions.

It is also important to note that the Canada Labour Code is already very specific on the matter of responsibility of federal employers and unions in the event of a strike. It requires the parties to maintain the services necessary to prevent immediate and serious risk to public health or safety. This applies to all employers under federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-415 raises some other concerns for our government. Rather than helping workers, this legislation would be detrimental to healthy federal labour relations in Canada. The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code are working effectively. In 2006, the majority of conflicts governed by the Canada Labour Code—some 97%— were resolved without work stoppages. Consider also the findings of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Since 1999, of the 18 complaints filed concerning the allegedly inappropriate use of replacement workers, 13 were withdrawn, three cases were heard and dismissed by the board and the other two are still waiting for a ruling.

One thing is clear: the updated Canada Labour Code strikes a crucial balance, which is something that deserves to be protected. Each party has the same interest in maintaining good labour relations, as well as the same power of influence. Just as unions have the power to advise their members to exercise their right to strike, employers have the right to try to maintain their operations, even if in a limited way, during a work stoppage.

To sum up, it seems clear to me that this bill is no different from its predecessor. It could have a serious impact on our economy, our workers and labour relations in this country. Many members of this House have acknowledged this fact, which is why they are joining us in saying no to this kind of legislative measure. All members must appreciate the real consequences of this bill and determine whether Canadians want to see this kind of legislation from their government.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Davenport.

I noticed in the debate on Bill C-257, the previous attempt to get the issue of replacement workers through the House, including the Canada Labour Code, that many Liberal members hid behind the issue of essential services when in fact the Canada Labour Code now deals with that in section 87.4. It lays out a provision that unions and employers must designate essential services prior to the commencement of a strike or lockout and in fact also gives the minister power to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to designate those services in that situation.

Therefore, there is no flaw in the current Canada Labour Code when it comes to essential services and yet that is the problem that Liberals hid behind when some of them voted against this legislation the last time.

I know the member spent considerable time in his speech this morning talking about that exact same issue, pretending that somehow his bill addresses something that did not need to be addressed in the first place, which somehow makes it more acceptable. I am wondering if he can explain why the Liberals continue to hide behind this issue of essential services when it really detracts from the need for legislation to prevent the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts in federal jurisdictions.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved that Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to present Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) to this House.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit federally regulated workplaces from hiring replacement workers during legal strikes or lockouts. The bill would also ensure that essential services are protected during any labour disruptions. Bill C-415 is a fair and equitable balance between the rights of working people in this country and the need to protect essential services upon which Canadians rely from coast to coast to coast.

My colleagues in the House may recall that Bill C-257 was recently before this House and while it proposed a ban on replacement workers, it failed to address the needs to protect essential services. As a result, many concerns were raised by a variety of individuals and groups that during a strike or lockout essential services would not be provided for Canadians.

In fact, I introduced amendments to Bill C-257 which I hoped to see adopted. These amendments would have protected essential services of which I speak while still banning replacement workers. Unfortunately, these amendments were ruled out of order.

As legislators, it is important that we take into account the concerns of all individuals and groups as we consider legislation and changes to current laws. In particular, there was a considerable number of individuals and groups who expressed their belief that it was important to ensure that essential services be protected in the event of a strike or lockout.

I recall there was reference to remote communities, for example, who rely for their survival on federally regulated services like railroads and air travel. In regard to these issues, I can certainly understand their concerns about ensuring that a ban on replacement workers also protected the essential services upon which they rely.

It is for this reason that this new bill addresses these issues and more importantly, it achieves a balance that every reasonable party can certainly accept. One might ask why the need exists to ban replacement workers. The answer is simple. The use of replacement workers for long strikes and lockouts in many cases raises the level of animosity to the point of altercations and sometimes violent altercations.

Working people have struggled over many years for reasonable working conditions, fairness and the right to bargain collectively. The right to withdraw their labour during a legal strike or lockout is fundamental to the balanced relationship between employers and employees.

Replacement workers reduce the bargaining power of unions or workers involved in a legal labour dispute to an extent that undermines fairness in the collective bargaining process. Such practices tend to leave a bitter taste and a sense of injustice in the minds of employees long after a strike or lockout has ended. It is an unfair bargaining tool placed upon the hands of employers. Clearly the employers who elect to utilize replacement workers may do so in order to reduce pressure upon themselves while at the same time increasing pressure for settlement on the part of their striking employees and their labour representatives.

I would also point out that experience has taught us that the vast majority of federally regulated employers do not elect to use replacement workers during the course of a labour dispute.

This is, in part, due to the nature of the work performed by many federally regulated employees. The time that is required to train and certify a replacement worker simply makes such a course of action impractical.

The reality is that the bill is designed to address, for the most part, circumstances where employers have less than honourable records when it comes to dealing with their employees in a fair and equitable manner during the course of a labour dispute.

Some have argued that under the current Labour Code there are provisions to prevent employers from undermining the collective bargaining process. In fact, the ability to prosecute an employer for violations of this kind is so limited that, to my knowledge, there have been but one or two successful prosecutions.

The process by which prosecution takes place with respect to this rather broad legal provision is so cumbersome and practically unenforceable that in practical terms it is, for the most part, ineffectual and may indeed contribute to even more entrenched bad feelings following a labour dispute.

In banning replacement workers, my bill would ensure there is respect for workers, respect that they both deserve and have worked so hard to attain.

Bill C-415 would also address the restrictions that would be placed upon management with respect to the kind of work that would be undertaken during a labour disruption.

In its original form, Bill C-257 placed what I believed were unreasonable restrictions on management activities during a strike or lockout. Bill C-415 would allow managers to perform tasks without such unreasonable restrictions. Once again, there would be a balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers.

While I am opposed to the use of replacement workers during a strike or a lockout, I believe that our first responsibility is for the protection of Canadians during any labour disruption. Bill C-415 would ensure that essential services are clearly and unequivocally protected during a strike or a lockout.

Once again, balance would be achieved; a balance between essential services Canadians need and deserve, and the rights of working people across the country. It is for this crucial reason that the bill would ensure that essential services are protected.

In some instances, a strike or a lockout could pose an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

While there are provisions in the Canada Labour Code that provide for the protection of essential services, Bill C-415 would clearly and without doubt protect essential services at the same time that it would ban replacement workers.

The current provisions could be difficult and cumbersome in that much of what is determined to be an essential service or who is designated as an essential worker would be determined far in advance of an actual labour dispute and could create difficulties, in practical terms, through a systematic inflexibility in the current law.

Bill C-415 is about balance and fairness. My colleagues and keen observers will know that this bill has been a long time coming.

There have been comparisons between Bill C-415 and Bill C-257. The fact is that Bill C-257, while well-intentioned, encouraged many to argue that it failed to meet the basic test of fairness, balance and the need to protect public interest.

Having engaged in extensive consultations with unions, business workers and policy makers, it is clear that legislatures banning replacement workers must include the protection of essential services.

Some of my colleagues in other parties believe this exemption was unnecessary, but it would have been irresponsible to assume that this could be dealt with by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when legal options made it clear that this was not necessarily the case.

The importance of this point is increased when we ban the use of replacement workers. The principal objective of Bill C-257, the banning of replacement workers, is realized in my Bill C-415. Under the bill replacement workers would not be permitted during strikes and lockouts at federally regulated workplaces. Therefore, in bringing forward Bill C-415, I have worked to achieve balance and fairness.

The bill would ban replacement workers in the event of a strike or lockout. The bill would protect the essential services Canadians need. The bill would ensure that managers can continue to work during a strike or lockout. Bill C-415 brings balance and fairness, and that is beneficial to Canadians, working people, the collective bargaining process and employers.

I encourage all members to recognize the need to protect the most fundamental rights of federally regulated workers to withdraw their labour during a strike or lockout without having to worry about their jobs going to replacement workers. Furthermore, I encourage all members to recognize the need to protect essential services.

I ask all members to support Bill C-415 and in so doing, to support labour fairness and balance in federally regulated workplaces.

Employment Insurance Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to get up and talk about Bill C-269 today, not so much for what the bill says, but just to talk about some of the things our government is doing and why we believe that Bill C-269 is not required at this time.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today at the third reading of Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. I would also like to thank all my hon. colleagues in this House for their contributions on this very important issue.

I want to start by saying that this government is committed to providing opportunities for all Canadians to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

The economy is booming. Canada's new government and the Minister of Finance have created the winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages and a brighter future can be delivered to all Canadians.

I want to point out for the sponsor of this bill, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, who I know feels this is a very important issue for her, her riding and Quebec, that in Quebec alone the employment growth so far this year has been above the national average at 2%, with the unemployment rate at its lowest point in 33 years at 6.9% in Quebec.

The figures for Canada on a whole are equally optimistic. During the first quarter of 2007, employment grew by an estimated 158,000 new jobs, more than 500,000 jobs since this government took power. Canada's unemployment rate fell to only 5.8% in October. The great news is that these new jobs are paying more. The average hourly wage rose by 6% between August 2006 and August 2007.

Despite these record employment statistics, the opposition has proposed fundamental and sweeping changes to the EI program. These changes include lower entrance requirements, large increases in the duration of benefits and increased benefit rates, changes that are simply not justified by these numbers.

It is estimated that these changes would have a combined cost to the EI program of $3.7 billion annually. The opposition has done this without providing the House or the HUMA committee any evidence to show that these changes are actually required or warranted.

The opposition spent a mere one hour studying this bill, an absolutely shocking amount of time to spend on a bill that proposes this level of spending of taxpayers' dollars. That amounts to more than $1 million per second of study for this bill. Although shocking, it is not surprising considering the opposition's record of proposing bills with billions of dollars in new spending with little or no study.

In addition, the opposition members on the HUMA committee refused to consult with business leaders and other stakeholders who will be affected most by these changes.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, the president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, stated that this additional $3.7 billion expenditure would return the EI system to a deficit and may result in higher premiums for both workers and employers. He further stated in no uncertain terms that these higher premiums are good for neither the working family nor business owners.

Certainly, one of the things I have heard as I have talked to business owners in my riding is that they would like to find a way for us to be able to cut EI premiums, not only for businesses but for individuals as well, so this bill would have us going in the opposite direction.

One would have thought that Mr. Kelly-Gagnon's opinion would have been of interest to the committee. However, the opposition decided that no employers should be consulted in the drafting, the debate or even the study of the bill. In fact, the opposition decided not to hear from any witnesses before committing to billions of dollars in new annual expenditures.

There are currently 19 bills at various stages before this House that propose changes to the EI program. The cost of these bills is expected to be well in excess of $11 billion annually. I think it is fair to say that some opposition members have proposed bills or advocate for changes to programs for political purposes without examining what the ramifications are for the taxpayer, without thorough study, and without an idea of what the true cost would be.

Another good example of this would be Bill C-257, which was handled in the same sort of fashion when we had the Bloc propose this bill as a private member's bill to issue sweeping changes to federal jurisdiction and federal legislation when it came to anti-replacement workers, when the Bloc suddenly had an interest in federal issues. I found it remarkably interesting that suddenly the Bloc had a new love for federal issues.

Once again, this was another bill that they tried to ram through committee. I can assure the House that if there had not been the time for thoughtful study on the bill and a chance to hear from witnesses, there would have been a problem that would have cost taxpayers millions in time as well as, probably, lost services.

Thankfully, we have a labour market in which more Canadians and certainly more Quebeckers are working than ever before, and the demand for labour is strong. We are at a great place in the economy. Opportunities are certainly abundant. We are currently experiencing labour shortages across the country. Certainly as we look to B.C., Alberta and Ontario, they are having a hard time not only with skilled labour but with unskilled labour as well.

Coupled with this strong labour market is evidence that the EI program is working well. It is meeting its objectives to help Canadian workers adjust to labour market changes.

I stated earlier that the evidence to support the proposed changes that Bill C-269 proposes was not presented at the HUMA committee. It was not presented because, I would have to say, it does not exist.

The evidence that does exist, though, indicates that the current EI program is meeting the needs of the unemployed Canadians for whom the program was intended. Eighty-three per cent of those who pay into the program and have a qualified job separation are eligible for benefits. This figure increases to over 90% in areas of high unemployment. Let me just repeat that fact again for those who may not be aware. For those who are in qualified job separations who are eligible for benefits, that figure is over 90% in areas of high unemployment. Those people are able to receive their EI benefits.

The evidence also indicates that both the amount and duration of EI benefits is meeting the needs of Canadians. On average, individuals use less than two-thirds of their EI entitlement before finding employment. Even in high unemployment regions, claimants rarely used more than 70% of their entitlement.

If all this evidence suggests that the current EI program is meeting the needs of individuals who use the program, why has the opposition proposed such wide, sweeping changes?

One of the EI program's chief goals is to encourage a return to the labour market. In other words, the program is designed to provide temporary income support while encouraging Canadians to seek and retain employment. We cannot and will not go back to the problems that existed with the EI under previous governments.

Our approach to EI reform will continue to be based on building on the strengths of Canada's economy and the growth in our labour market. That being said, Canada's new government has acted to make changes to the EI program where the evidence supports the need for change.

For example, our government has expanded the eligibility for compassionate care benefits, which is certainly something we heard about during the last campaign. It is something we have been able to put into place.

We have launched a pilot project to examine the effects of providing additional weeks of benefits for those in areas of high unemployment.

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

I'm not sure exactly what Ms. Savoie was asking. Was it whether we would just adjourn the meeting and come back some other time? What was the request? We're sitting here; we're supposed to be doing clause-by-clause consideration on this, and it seems that there is a pretty major issue.

I would note that we have many very important things we should be doing as a committee, and this is the third time we have been dealing with a bill that has some serious issues associated with it. We had the Bloc's Bill C-257. We had the NDP's Bill C-304. Now we have the Liberals' Bill C-284. All of them had things in them that were clearly not completely thought out before they came here. In every case there is an urgency for discussing these bills.

Of course, I understand that a private member's bill is never going to be perfect and there are always going to be things that you have to deal with in committee, but in each of these cases they had major flaws that probably should have been discovered by the parties sponsoring the bills.

It comes down to the fact that we have this employability thing that we're supposed to be doing. We have a poverty study that we're all on side with and want to get into. If we adjourn this meeting and then come back and have to have another meeting on this, it just seems like a crazy way to go about it.

I'm not sure what Ms. Savoie is talking about. Is that what your suggestion was, that we put this on the side and come back? If we do that, does it end the meeting and we waste another two hours?

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a fishery in my riding, it does border on Lake Ontario where there is a fair bit of recreational fishing going on. I listened to the debate this morning and there obviously is some disagreement among the members with regard to the appropriate process which Bill C-45 should undertake. Let me address a couple of the points that have been raised in debate which deserve some comment.

First of all, the issue of a bill going to committee prior to second reading has been the representation of a number of members with regard to this bill. It has to do with the fact that the bill has not been amended in some 36 years. It has to do with the fact that there are numerous stakeholders. Fisheries in Canada are extremely complex and there are many stakeholders as has been pointed out.

We have heard the argument that the bill should be hoisted and go to committee for some consultations. The allegation is there have not been consultations and it would appear that representations made by various stakeholder groups would tend to support that allegation, that consultations should have taken place. I should note that even in the summary of the bill it is stated:

This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.

I do not know how some members define collaboration, but I would suspect that it does constitute to some extent, maybe a great extent, that there has been ample consultation with regard to a draft text or at least the principal issues.

The question with regard to second reading has to do with once the House has passed a bill at second reading, Parliament has given the bill approval in principle. The bill then goes to committee where witnesses are called. There is an opportunity at committee stage to propose amendments from time to time. Sometimes there are an enormous number of amendments made and many of them are ruled out of order. The reason they would be ruled out of order is that they would be contradictory to the decision of Parliament that the bill had received approval in principle. Effectively committee stage amendments are meant only to correct errors or to make certain modifications which are compatible with the fundamental principles of the bill.

Today in debate members have provided a number of examples of changes they would like to see to the bill as it is right now as we debate it at second reading, which in their view and I suspect in the view of the committee clerk, would be out of order because they are beyond the scope of the bill or amend the fundamental principle of the bill which has been approved by Parliament.

It is a very important question. I wanted to comment on this because the fisheries minister himself rose in the House in posing a question in which he dismissed referring the bill to committee prior to second reading. Subject to checking the record, if I could recall his statement, it was basically that it would be an opportunity for a whole bunch of people and virtually everybody would want to come before committee and hijack the process and we would be subjected to listening to all the input from various stakeholders who might be environmentalists, fisher persons, regulators, jurisdictional representatives from the provinces or whatever.

I have two points to make. The first point is that is consultation. That is listening. That is an important part of the process of making good laws and wise decisions. On my second point, I would refer to what the member who is now the Deputy Speaker said in the House, that delay is an essential part of the legislative process. It is part of democracy to filibuster, to debate fully, to raise as many questions as one may have. To some it may be viewed as disruptive to the flow of business, and apparently the minister views it that way.

When members feel strongly enough about an issue related to a bill, they have tools they can use. They have the tools of debate. They have the tools to make motions. They have the tools to call witnesses. Under our Standing Orders, they have the tools to be very thorough and exhaustive in their attention to a piece of legislation.

The minister has made it clear on the record that he does not want to hear from all the stakeholders in any great detail. This bill was tabled in December 2006 and has been languishing around. I do not know why it did not come up sooner, because it is an important bill. There are a number of outstanding issues and it is very important that they be dealt with. The minister clearly did not want to hear from all of the stakeholders who would have all kinds of questions, ideas and concerns. That is what the legislative process is all about.

I dare say that many members in this place will not have had an opportunity to read Bill C-45 in its totality. It is over 100 pages long. This bill replaces the existing act fully. It repeals the old act. If we are going to do the job properly, we have to go through the bill clause by clause to determine what has changed and to determine whether or not there is an understanding of why it may have changed. It is very difficult. Even in the brief 20 minutes that each member is given to speak at second reading, a member would not get into very much in terms of the essence of some of the details.

The first speaker raised some very important points. One had to do with transferring a licence on retirement. Another was the role of the tribunals. Another one that I thought was quite interesting was the delegation of the minister's responsibilities to DFO officials. This is a whole new regime. There was a suggestion that there have been cases in the past of abusing that authority to grant or to refuse licences.

If we think about it, there is a lot on the table for parliamentarians. There is a hoist motion, which basically asks Parliament to cease this process at second reading and to send the bill to committee for consideration. Interesting enough, when the minister made his argument on why we should not do that because he did not want to hear from all the stakeholders, from the various groups, aboriginals or commercial fishermen or jurisdictional individuals, et cetera, he forgot about bills like Bill C-30.

Bill C-30, when it was first tabled in the House, was the government's alternative to Kyoto. It is the environmental plan. It was leaked to environmental groups so that they could have an opportunity to respond. A week before the bill was even tabled in the House, they critiqued it in its totality and it was unanimous that Bill C-30 was a failure and it was never going to get anywhere. The bill was tabled in the House, but we did not have a debate on it. We have never had a debate on that bill because the government decided to send it to committee before second reading.

As we know, Bill C-30, a very bad bill, the clean air act, was totally rewritten by parliamentarians who heard a plethora of witnesses to make sure the bill was going to deliver in terms of our international commitments, and the appropriate processes and targets for our greenhouse gas emission undertakings.

That bill was totally rewritten by the committee. It was based on expert testimony and the best work possible by the members who were selected by each of the parties to be on this special legislative committee.

If consulting with Canadians on the clean air act is appropriate before second reading because it is complicated, there are a lot of diverging views, there are areas in which it is not overtly clear to members why certain steps have been taken, sending it to committee is the place to do it.

The minister makes his argument about it not going to committee before second reading because the Conservatives do not want to hear from these people and yet the government itself referred another bill to committee before second reading. In fact, that is not the only one. One cannot have it both ways. One either recognizes the circumstances a bill is in or one risks losing the bill and having to find another way to do it.

We cannot afford, quite frankly, to lose this new Fisheries Act because there are many changes that have taken place and many new areas that should be dealt with that are currently not in the existing legislation. One that I happened to notice and something that I have spent a fair bit of time on in my involvement with the International Joint Commission has to do with alien invasive species. In part 3 of this bill it actually refers to aquatic invasive species.

Canadians may be familiar, for instance, with zebra mussels, which are an alien invasive species or what is called an aquatic invasive species. I understand there are some 30 of these species in the Great Lakes system and they destroy the fish habitat. In the work that is being done so far, for every one alien invasive species that is treated, dealt with and gotten rid of, another one appears. How does it appear? There is certainly speculation about how they come in but it has to do with ship ballast. They are brought in by ships that come from abroad.

I noted in this area that it is an offence to transport an aquatic invasive species. I wonder what would happen if a ship coming to Canada has a listed aquatic invasive species that it is not aware of but is discovered. I am going to be very interested in seeing the regulations on how to deal with it. I suppose it could even involve a court case in terms of whether the ship owners knew or ought to have known that in the normal practice of managing the ballast of a ship, they would have probably collected certain species that would be classified as an aquatic invasive species.

There is certainly that area. The International Joint Commission is a group made up of representation from Canada and the United States which share common waterways. It is responsible for conducting studies and making observations to determine what the issues are and to suggest and discuss possible solutions.

The only problem with the IJC though is that it has no authority and no power because half of its members represent the U.S. government and the other half represent the Canadian government. It cannot unilaterally take charge of a situation and do something about it, so it takes a lot more work. I would be very interested to see how the responsibilities and the authorities that the minister has in the bill would be able to dovetail with the responsibilities of the IJC.

In part 3 clause 69.(1) states that: “No person shall export, import or transport any member of a prescribed aquatic invasive species”. When I read further, clause 70 states:

The minister may, subject to the regulations--

And regulations will be made at some future date.

--destroy or authorize any person to destroy, in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Minister, any member of

(a) a prescribed aquatic invasive species; or

(b) any other species that the Minister considers to be an aquatic invasive species as defined in the regulations.

I would think that this may be a problem because when the minister now has the authority to designate any other species to be an aquatic invasive species, we are probably making law through regulations and I am not sure that is going to get by the scrutiny of regulations committee but we will have to see on that.

In any event, even the small section which is only about four clauses in part 3 on aquatic invasive species, I could think of numerous questions that I would have of the IJC, that I would have of those who import and export and have ships using the waterways of Canada.

The other area that I want to comment on has to do with what was raised by one hon. member as an example of what can happen during second reading. As the member had indicated, we had Bill C-257 which was a bill related to replacement workers. It was to be amended at committee. There were some amendments. Ultimately, it came back that in the opinion of the Speaker, in consultation with the clerks, that the amendments made at committee were beyond the scope of the bill. Even though they were certainly directly related but what they did was they touched upon another bill which was not mentioned in Bill C-257.

Therefore, there are even good amendments which do not get incorporated into a bill on technical reasons. This is a very good example. In fact, right now a new bill on the same subject matter related to replacement workers, Bill C-415, has been ruled to be non-votable by a subcommittee of procedure and House affairs for the reasons that it is same or similar.

I can understand the argument that the vast majority of Bill C-415 is identical to Bill C-257 which was defeated by the House. Therefore, we could argue that the majority of that bill has already been defeated by the House and to put the question on those provisions again would be redundant and therefore the bill in the subcommittee's view is not votable.

It has now been appealed and it is still under review, but even something as simple as a reference to another piece of legislation may be enough to undermine the acceptability of changes at the committee stage.

I have to say in my experience of almost 14 years now that it is extremely difficult to get changes made at committee which are substantive. I think the members know that. I think the minister knows that. I think the minister also knows that should we have the kind of consultations that members have been asking for, that changes are going to be required here. He should also know that there is a great deal of support for the vast majority of the bill but there are some areas of weakness and members have raised those.

I believe that in a minority situation, this is a prime example of where the parties should be collaborating on the areas in which the bill can be improved. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Briefly, Chair, in response to what Mr. Godin was saying, I just want to get it on the record that even though I might have inferred this, or perhaps I even misspoke, I don't want to let Monsieur Godin think that I'm suggesting we rubber-stamp any of the subcommittee's decisions. But I do agree with what Mr. Reid was saying. I think it's imperative that this committee as a whole not vote on the subcommittee decision based on whether they like the bill or not. That would be a very dangerous precedent.

The subcommittee made a decision. They examined both bills—Bill C-257 and Bill C-415—extensively and diligently. They came to a conclusion that there was sufficient similarity that Bill C-415 in this session should not be voted upon because of the similarity concerns. So I think it would be highly inappropriate if this committee decided to reverse that decision just based on the fact that they like the bill, that they like a bill dealing with the ban of replacement workers.

That's not what we're here for. We're here just to determine whether or not the subcommittee's decision was an appropriate one, because there's always an opportunity for this same bill to be introduced in the next session. But our job as parliamentarians—and as commented on by Mr. Reid—is to respect the Standing Orders.

With respect to Monsieur Godin's suggestion that the former Alliance Party had said that all bills should be voted upon, what they had said was—and we certainly supported that—that all private members' bills should have the ability to be voted on, but still respecting the Standing Orders, which say except in the case of two bills being so similar that only one can be debated and voted upon per session. We're still consistent with our position on that. We're just saying that this is too similar to Bill C-257. It is too similar to Bill C-257, and that is the decision the subcommittee came up with.

We charged the subcommittee with the responsibility—and I know they took it seriously—of examining those bills that were similar in content to determine whether or not they should be votable or non-votable. That's what I think we need to respect, not whether the content of the bill is something that I approve of or disapprove of.

So with those two points on the record, I'll turn it over to Ms. Redman.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I don't think that's a secret. It was in the Standing Orders.

It was in camera, Mr. Chairman. We were dealing with the issue of similarity. There were a number of issues, but I think we all know that similarity was the relevant consideration here.

It seems to me that it's possible to start getting some things mixed up in our discussions. In particular, it's possible to start mixing up the ruling of the Speaker, the ruling under which he was operating, and the less tight rule, vis-à-vis similarity, that governs our decisions. And it was the cause of the subcommittee ruling as it did.

Again, I'm being respectful of the in camera rule when I simply refer to the rule itself. It talks about substantial similarity, and a review of the two bills makes it clear that there is substantial similarity.

The Speaker's ruling against finding similarity according to the tighter criteria he was working with was based on having made, at an earlier point in time, a ruling that there was a substantial difference between having something that deals only with replacement workers and having something that deals with replacement workers with reference to an exemption for workers in essential services. And that was the distinction he made. He said, having it in a previous ruling, I would then have to follow through and keep that ruling consistent as I deal with the bill and the standing order on which I'm ruling—“I” meaning him.

In our case, we were looking at this without being bound by a previous ruling that we ourselves had made. As I say, we were dealing with a wider range of similarity. I want to point out that if you take a look at the two bills and you go through them, what you'll see is that most of the paragraphs are actually identical. A couple of clauses are different, but for the most part they are absolutely identical.

You can see that effectively this really is the same bill. People who doubt that this is the case I would invite to look at the legislation in the province of Quebec on the subject of replacement workers, which is essentially on the banning of replacement workers in Quebec. You can see that there really is a substantial difference between that legislation, although it's on the same general topic, and the legislation that was introduced in the House, whether it's Bill C-415 or the...I'm sorry, I've forgotten the number of the law.

It's Bill C-257.

You can see that there's a pretty substantial difference. There are many pages--I believe it's 80 pages, if memory serves, or thereabouts--of descriptions of the kinds of services that are exempt. There is great detail going into trying to ensure that the ban on replacement workers will exist while all the services that could be regarded as being essential for the function of the economy, for public safety, and so on, are dealt with.

Had a piece of legislation like that been written, I think it would have been pretty substantially different from either Bill C-415 or Bill C-257, and it might have received a very different reception from the committee. I can't say for certain, of course, because we didn't receive such a bill. But my inclination would be to think that it would be substantially different as opposed to being substantially similar. If you take a look at the two bills, and I have them in front of me, you'll get a sense of what I'm getting at.

The clause numbers are different, Mr. Chairman, in some cases, but often it's the same thing. You really have to look not at the clause numbers of the bill but at the sections and subsections of the Canada Labour Code that are being referred to. Then you get a sense of this.

I'll just look down here and try to find examples so you get the point. Just give me a moment.

In clause 2 of Bill C-257, it says that subsection 94(2.1) of the act is replaced by the following. I'm also referring to Bill C-415, clause 3. So far the wording is identical.

In Bill C-257 it says:

(2.1) Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout declared in accordance with this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) use the services of a person to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out, if that person was hired during the period commencing on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout;

(b) use, in the establishment where the strike or lockout has been declared, the services of a person employed by another employer, or the services of a contractor, to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out;

If you go back and look at the same thing in Bill C-415 you'll see very similar language in clause 3:

(2.1) Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout declared in accordance with this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) use the services of a person to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out, if that person was hired during the period commencing on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout;

(b) use, in the establishment where the strike or lockout has been declared, the services of a person employed by another employer, or the services of a contractor, to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out;

You'll notice here that on the surface these two clauses, if you're looking at them side by side, look more different than they actually are. If you put them right beside each other so you have the same language versions, you'll notice it's just the way they were drafted that gives a superficial appearance of greater difference. Underlining occurs to a larger degree in Bill C-415, where all the words in proposed subsection 94(2.1) from “Subject” all the way down to “Part” are underlined. You can actually see that the words that will appear in the act as rewritten will be identical.

Similarly--and I'm not sure I can tell you exactly why this is--the paragraph letter (a) is underlined in one and not in the other, but it's the same thing. The words “who is a member of” are underlined in one and not the other, but they're going to be the same when rewritten. In one you're talking about changing the wording and showing the detailed changes to the words. In the other you're simply showing the section as rewritten; you're eliminating the underlining. But they are in fact exactly the same thing. They're just different styles of legislative drafting. I suppose it would be an interesting matter to find out if the same legislative counsel worked on both of these together.

The use of that continues, with “during the period commencing” underlined in one and not the other, but the words are still there. The word “day” is in line 35 of Bill C-415 but not in the corresponding line 23 in the other bill--similarly the final words of this paragraph, “under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout” .

In legislative drafting, if you're adding a whole new paragraph, rather than underlining every line, which would make it hard to read, a line is put down the left-hand side to indicate the new material that's being put in. That was done in one bill but not the other.

In Bill C-415 this was done, but not in Bill C-257. But when you look at it, once again you see that exactly the same wording is in use. I mentioned proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code. Here you see all the same wording.

But again, superficially it looks different. You notice I was stumbling a bit at the beginning, trying to find the examples, because I myself was thrown off by the superficialities that have nothing to do with the substance of the bills but are in fact simply a question of the drafting style.

Not everything is identical. I don't want to leave the false impression that absolutely everything is identical here. If you continue, proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(b), as far as I can see, is identical. That's a paragraph I already read. But if you go to proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(c), there is at this point, I believe, a change. So there are some distinctions. I'm not trying to say that everything is identical, but the differences that appear on the surface are not as great as they might appear to be.

Looking ahead, here's another example: proposed subsection 94(2.4) is changed. It appears that in this case there is an alteration that is actually different. The two are substantially similar. They're not identical.

Proposed subsection 94(2.4) in one bill would read:

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

This actually is different. Excuse me for a moment. I think I have the right subsection. Yes, I do. Yes, they're quite different.

The other one reads:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) are being met.

But even here, we find that there's a great deal of similarity. We're just continuing. You'll see that largely this is the result of a renumbering of proposed subsections in one compared with the other, which I suspect is the reason for the line down the left-hand side showing that sections have been replaced.

Proposed subsection 94(2.5) in Bill C-257 becomes proposed subsection 94(2.4) in Bill C-415, where you'll immediately see that the wording is actually identical. Once again, I myself, when trying to make the argument that these are similar, was thrown off and was indicating that they're more different than they actually are.

Here's what proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the one bill says:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) are being met.

It changes, in the other bill:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) are being met.

It's the fact that (2.4) is removed from one and is included in the other that gives the impression that all the other paragraphs are actually different, when in fact just the numbering is being changed.

Then we go back. There's proposed subsection 94(2.5) in the one bill; that's in Bill C-415. Now we're back to being identical, word for word, with proposed subsection 94(2.6) in the other piece of legislation:

The investigator may visit the work places at any reasonable time and be accompanied by a person designated by the certified trade union, a person designated by the employer, and any other person whose presence the investigator considers necessary for the purposes of the investigation.

It's absolutely identical, word for word.

Proposed subsection 94(2.6) in the one is identical to proposed subsection 94(2.7) in the other. I think the rule of thumb to follow here is that for this part of the bill, Bill C-257 has one number extra, one more proposed subsection than Bill C-415. So proposed subsection 94(2.6) in Bill C-415 is proposed subsection 94(2.7) in Bill C-257.

Again, identical:

The investigator shall, on request, produce identification and a certificate of designation signed by the Minister.

It's the same thing with the next clause:

The investigator shall, immediately after completing the investigation, make a report to the Minister and send a copy of the report to the parties.

And you can see the next paragraph, where you have identical wording again, it's clause 2.8, and then the other:

The investigator has, for the purposes of the investigation, all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, except the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

With regard to clause 3 of Bill C-257, we see that it's essentially identical to clause 4 of Bill C-415.

The point I'm making is reasonably clear. I can continue and go through the entire bills--they're not long bills--but nonetheless I think the point is made pretty clearly, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing I wanted to draw to people's attention--as we work together and often agree with each other, particularly in the same caucus--is that I'm not as worried as Mr. Lukiwski that a dangerous precedent could be set if we overruled a previous ruling of a subcommittee, particularly when that subcommittee has met in camera. Unless we go in camera ourselves, we don't have full access to what was discussed and it seems reasonable to have to make certain assumptions. So I would differ with my colleague on this point.

But I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent—and here I think he would be in agreement with me—if we were to try to make our vote on this bill contingent on any consideration other than what the rules say. And if anybody here is voting based on the merits of replacement worker legislation, whether there should be such legislation or, if there is such legislation, whether or not it should make provision for essential services, these are questions of policy and they are utilitarian questions, the kinds of questions that as parliamentarians we are asking ourselves all the time, because our goal is to make good laws for the governance of the country.

In this committee we have to act much more as a court acts, not as utilitarians but as contienes, looking at what the rules say, what our prime directive is. And our prime directive is ensuring that the Standing Orders are followed as closely as they can be, without regard to the actual merits or demerits of specific pieces of legislation, but rather with consideration of the relevant rule and the relevant mandate we have. And that mandate is to make sure any bills that are substantially similar to other bills that have been before the House not be permitted to move forward; and of course, that if they are not falling afoul of that rule or the other rules that govern our actions, we allow them to go forward.

So I urge all members of this committee to base their votes on the facts and on our mandate to follow the rules laid out under the Standing Orders.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That was a great question. I suppose we could suspend.

Perhaps there's a dictionary very close to this room. It might not be my Oxford English Dictionary; it might be one of the other great dictionaries of this land. Funk & Wagnalls—that's exactly it. We could get one of those.

Perhaps you'll allow that my version of “substantially” is okay for now. We'll argue the differences at a later time—maybe later on in this same dissertation. But right now we'll go back to where I was.

I also brought Ms. Bell's bill, which was ruled to be very similar to this bill by our subcommittee, and by reference then, by this committee. I just thought I'd bring it because they look the same from a distance. They're like those Mustangs, aren't they?

That brings us to Bill C-415, Mr. Silva's bill, which we as a subcommittee ruled to be also substantially similar. I'm looking at the front cover, and other than the numbers on it and the names at the bottom, it's “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”. If I read the other one, it says “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”.

I'm telling you that sounds substantially similar to me, because that sounds exact. So it doesn't even meet the criteria of “substantially”; it means the criteria of “exact”. If I'd brought the whole dictionary I could move back to “e” and look up “exact” and we would be discussing that at this point. I should have done that. I'll get better at this as I spend more time in this place.

But truly, when it comes down to it we're dealing with whether they are substantially the same, and we're not talking whether there are any differences, because under “substantially” it doesn't say they must be exactly the same. I'll read it again. It says “to a great or significant extent”. So there have to be some similarities, I guess, for the most part. If we look at “for the most part”, I think we'll find that Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 clearly have the same purpose. It says right there “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”. They have the same purpose, namely to ban the use of replacement workers. That's clearly what this is saying here—the banning of replacement workers.

They both amend the Canada Labour Code and they're identical, other than one clause and one subsection. So we have one clause and one subsection different in one from the other. I think that meets my “substantially” rule here. We're talking about them being substantially the same.

Mr. Chair, I know I'm to put all my comments through you, but I seem to be losing my audience. As an amateur actor, I'd feel bad if they'd all gotten up and walked out on me. Okay, I understand they're listening now.

They both contain an identical paragraph in their summaries, stating their purpose:

—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.

Maybe I should say it twice, because it says it in each of them:

—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.

So both bills say exactly the same thing in their purposes and in their final paragraphs. Other than the word “essential” added a couple of times in one and not in the other, these bills are substantially the same—thus the ruling by your subcommittee after diligent work. I have to tell you, finding the word “essential” in there a couple of times made it fairly easy. That was the only thing that was different. So that's the ruling there.

Mr. Silva also brought it to our attention that the Speaker made a ruling. I think I spoke about this the other day, and I'll speak to it again. I had the Speaker's ruling in front of me, because when you can't sleep well at night you can grab things like the Speaker's rulings and they'll certainly cure your insomnia. If you want to read a few Speaker's rulings you can get to sleep a lot better.

This is the Speaker's ruling on Bill C-415, and I've searched and searched all through it. I've looked on every page, because there are three pages. Non-votability is not mentioned once by the Speaker. That isn't what the Speaker was charged to do. The Speaker was charged with determining whether the bill was in order or not. We're not ruling this bill out of order. As I've said, Mr. Silva's bill is still very much in order. He can take it to the House and have it debated, because it is a bill that's in order and can be discussed. But it can't be voted on, because we've ruled it non-votable.

I'd like to go back to “substantially”, because we've talked a bit about it. That truly is the criteria we're dealing with here. I brought a couple of my favourite pens, because I couldn't bring the Mustangs inside. We could have parked them outside, but I would have needed the chair's permission for us all to go outside and look at them. I'm not sure I'm allowed to use props, Chair, but I will until you tell me I can't.

These are two of my favourite kinds of pens because they write on photographs and on paper.

You brought the dictionary, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Does it say “substantially” is pretty much what I said?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Earlier, I had suggested the idea that we ought to be willing to look at in camera evidence if we took the whole committee in camera, and there were a number of objections, but I think they're mistaken. I think you can do this. The privilege of going in camera, it seems to me, for the subcommittee derives from the larger committee, and for the Committee of the Whole it's from Parliament. So I can't see why we couldn't do this.

There have been some suggestions that discussions in camera were of a nature that would have made a profound difference to Mr. Silva's ability to make his case before this committee. I can't reveal exactly what happened in the committee, but we know certain things. We know it was relating specifically to the issue of his item being substantially the same or dealing with substantially the same subject matter as a previous piece of legislation, Bill C-257, I think. It was not about the other things. Nobody's suggesting it violates the Constitution. Nobody's suggesting it's an item outside of federal jurisdiction. So we already know a fair bit about this.

I have to be honest and say I don't think there have been tremendous procedural difficulties either with going in camera or, frankly, that there's any suggestion that any particular discussion has occurred that makes this particular hearing in some respect in violation of the normal rules that would allow him to have an open and fair hearing of what he's saying.

We could have the option of going in camera, and I still think that would work, notwithstanding the concerns that one or two of my colleagues have. But I don't see, given the nature of the discussion, how this is damaging to Mr. Silva's interest in making his presentation.

Perhaps I'll just leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Right. And my recollection of her responses is that it was extremely difficult to address just one provision, i.e. replacement workers, without touching on essential services. As I recall, she made some very strong arguments that the definition of essential services would have to be included for a bill to move forward. As I said, she can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding of the comments she made. Yet now, if I'm understanding her arguments correctly, she seems to be arguing in favour of making this bill votable because in her mind it's substantially different from the previous bill.

I'm trying to square the argument with the arguments she has made in the past, because it's not difficult for any of us to foresee that quite possibly this bill.... For argument's sake, let's say that the committee did decide to make it votable and that it passed second reading. Now, those are a lot of hypotheticals, but just for argument's sake, let's say that happened and it went off to committee. And following up on Madam Robillard's and many others' arguments in the past that you cannot in all good conscience touch this part of the Canada Labour Code without defining what essential services are, this bill does not do that. It does not define.

So we could end up in a similar situation, Mr. Chair, where we're at committee and Madam Robillard herself or someone else brings forward a definition of what essential services are. It might be one clause long, it might be 64 pages of definition. My understanding is that in Quebec labour law, the definition of what constitutes essential services is quite lengthy. It's quite involved. They tried to cover off everything possible, and that in itself is its own minefield of what you put in there and what you exclude.

So it wouldn't be difficult to follow this through. Someone would make those amendments, those amendments would be ruled out of order, and the bill would fail because the definition of essential services wasn't included. So the bill is voted down, similar to what happened to Bill C-257. Another member says, to use Madam Robillard's argument, oh well, the amendments should have been allowed but they weren't, so I will put my definition of what constitutes essential services into a new bill, I will introduce it in this same Parliament, and I will hopefully get it votable. And we could go through that whole process all over again.

So then we have a definition of essential services, and we could be back in the same situation, where some other well-intentioned member, like Mr. Silva, would bring forward a bill but try to correct the problem of the previous bill, which in this case would be Bill C-415, which was trying to correct a problem of a previous bill, which was Bill C-257. We end up in the situation where Bill C-415 is hopefully corrected, in the sense that it has this definition built into the new bill, but then ultimately the committee or the subcommittee rules it is votable. Off it goes again, gets to committee, and somebody brings forward amendments. Wait a minute, that definition isn't inclusive enough; we have to try to amend the bill. Well, somebody rules that no, wait a minute, when you start to amend and bring in other services as your description of essential services, that's beyond the scope of this particular bill. They're out of order. You know, this could go on and on and on in the same Parliament.

I get back to my earlier point: at what time does Parliament say that we've had a good, fulsome, healthy debate on this subject matter? In this particular case it's on the subject matter of replacement workers. The House has spoken. The House in its wisdom decided to set this issue aside. That's not saying that in a future Parliament it won't be dealt with.

I suspect that given the track record on replacement workers—I don't remember, I think Mr. Preston or Mr. Lukiwski said it was 11 times, or maybe 13 or 17 times, or whatever the number was—it just continues to come back and come back. So I suspect that we haven't heard the last of this legislation. If we uphold the rule of the subcommittee and make this non-votable, I suspect it will come up in a future Parliament, and all of us—well, those of us who are back—will be sitting here debating the same issue again.

That's what I'm proposing to Madam Robillard, and what I'm trying to do is square the thoughts that she put in, in the past, to the need to have essential services defined in labour legislation and in the Canada Labour Code; and if she disagrees with what she said a few years ago, how she squares that with this particular legislation, which doesn't define “essential services”. Doesn't she at least believe that my scenario is quite possible, whereby this legislation could go off to committee and indeed someone, any member, could bring forward amendments to try to define what constitutes essential services in Canada under the Canada Labour Code? Then we could be into this big mess all over again, where some member decides, oh well, the Speaker ruled that was beyond the scope of the bill, so then they try to correct that by drafting a new bill. We'd be right back here all over again.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I want to reiterate some of the procedural arguments I raised originally, and I want to speak to Mr. Owen's point.

Yes, I totally agree there's at least an apparent contradiction in what we're doing here, because of the Speaker's ruling that Bill C-415 contained elements of the bill that are beyond the scope of Bill C-257. One could then argue--as have Mr. Owen, Madam Robillard, and Ms. Davis--that this clearly means they are two different bills. I think that type of situation perhaps has to be addressed, but at some time in the future. I don't think it's incumbent upon this committee to try to address that situation right now. I agree there seems to be a bit of a problem there, and somehow Parliament has to work out a system in which there can be consistency rather than inconsistency in a ruling of a Speaker, as opposed to a ruling of a subcommittee. However, I don't think this committee is charged with that responsibility right now.

What we have is a situation where the subcommittee, charged with the responsibility of determining votability or non-votability, came back with its decision that Bill C-415 was non-votable. I would like to have been part of the discussion, or at least had knowledge of the decision and how the subcommittee came to it. Obviously Mr. Silva would like to know that as well. If we had been able to understand the decision-making process, it might have made this discussion at little easier and perhaps influenced some of the members a little more appropriately.

But we don't have that luxury, and we always need to remember that a decision made by a subcommittee really should not be overruled unless there is overwhelming and compelling new evidence and new information, and it can be demonstrated that the subcommittee was perhaps unaware of it at the time of their decision. I don't think it's sufficient to just say we disagree with the decision of the subcommittee, for whatever reasons. It is incumbent upon this committee, if they wish to overrule the subcommittee's decision, to come up with some very substantive reasons why--not just “I disagree”, but that they erred in terms of substance or lack of information, or they had some piece of information denied them that might have changed their decision-making process.

I am convinced, without the benefit of knowing what happened in that committee, that the subcommittee took its work seriously, examined all aspects of the two bills in question, and came up with a majority ruling that should be upheld by this committee.

I would also point out the obvious: that the subcommittee is comprised of members from all four political parties. So there really isn't an argument to be made that they were unduly influenced by one political party, one political view. Some members of that subcommittee represent parties that like replacement worker legislation, some don't like it, and some are divided. But representatives from each of the four political parties carefully considered the question and came up with a ruling.

Before anything else, we should take the view that we will respect the subcommittee's decision unless there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they did not have possession of information that could have changed their decision. I've yet to see any discussion at this table that suggests to me they did not have all of the information at their disposal. I believe they did. I believe they carefully considered both Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 and came to a decision that they thought was the correct one.

I also want to point out that from a procedural standpoint there is a reason why private members' bills are only allowed to be brought forward once in a session. I don't know how many years this replacement worker legislation has been brought forward, but I think similar bills have come forward before Parliament about eleven times. They have been voted against every time.

Several times, I'm sure, when the Liberal Party was in government, they would have considered replacement worker legislation that came before them, even in private members' legislation. I'm sure if we went back to the voting record of some of the members on this committee, we would find that they voted against replacement worker legislation. Everything being equal, they certainly have a perfect right to change their minds and vote in favour of a piece of legislation that they previously voted against.

The point is that private members' bills should only be brought forward once every session, and this is substantively the same bill, even though there are elements of it that are quite clearly different. The essential services portion of this private member's bill is different, but I believe it is substantively a similar bill, and only one bill of its kind can be discussed in one session.

However, Mr. Silva's recourse, as correctly pointed out by the chair, is that there is yet another option. That is to bring this for appeal to the entire Parliament, where that bill can be voted upon by secret ballot. I think we need to respect the procedures we currently have in place and the decision of the subcommittee, because they do not deny Mr. Silva the right to further pursue his quest to get this bill deemed votable. He can still take it.

Frankly, if the general will at that time is completely out of the hands of this committee and in the hands of all parliamentarians, it will almost be like having a vote on the original bill. I'm quite sure that if a majority of the House deems this bill to be votable, when the bill comes to an actual vote you will see the same results.

So I think Mr. Silva does have options before him, and therefore I do not think this committee needs to overrule a carefully considered decision by a subcommittee.

Thank you, Chair.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

It's simply to answer a couple of points, and I do agree with Mr. Owen. I take no offence to what he's just said, but even at the outset of this meeting the criterion that was used and why the subcommittee ruled the current matter non-votable were stated, so it's not as if what criterion was used or how it was arrived at is an unknown factor.

I understand that because it was an in camera session it sure seems that way, but we do at least come out with the criterion as to what happened there.

I would also like to refer to the fact that the similarity between these two bills is what we're trying to discuss today. But I would remind the group that we got here somewhat a different way too, because Bill C-257, which we're preparing, was also similar to another bill. Bill C-257 was Mr. Nadeau's bill and the other one Ms. Bell's, and we were even charged by the Speaker to come up with a way of making sure this doesn't happen again, so that we find it non-votable at the appropriate time in the process rather than both of them getting to the House and having to be ruled out of order there--to come up with some remedy. And that's truly what happened with Ms. Bell's bill, which was substantially similar to Mr. Nadeau's bill. We couldn't find one of them non-votable, so we had to rewrite the criteria.

We've now rewritten the criteria so that we catch it at the appropriate spot in the process so it can't happen again, and we've tried to write--and it's been accepted as a report of this committee---the remedies for how we could address it if it does happen again.

We certainly have spent a lot of time on the subject matter of a bill respecting the Labour Code/replacement workers. We've seen three bills in the House that came forward with some substantial similarity on that, and that's why we looked at it that way.

To answer one of the questions that Mr. Silva brought forward about some previous Speakers' rulings--I understand that there are some there--as Mr. Hill said, some of these rulings took place during the time when private members' bills were treated substantially differently from the way they are treated today. So I recognize that a ruling made in 1980 was maybe under the rules that Mr. Hill was talking about, where you went and pleaded your case before whole committees and so on, and so I'll have to assume that maybe it was before the time....

To address Mr. Hill's point, I believe that the subcommittee will not take it personally but will certainly keep in the back of its mind that this committee is here for us to report to, and that's why the levels of appeal first bring it back to this committee for right of appeal. However, if that's just going to be the case each and every time, then why does the subcommittee actually exist and why don't we do the business at the full committee?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you. I have observations from the comments that have been made by the members.

Whether or not the issue is the same subject is in fact irrelevant, because there have already been several rulings by Speakers saying that it's not the question of the subject being the same, but whether the content is different. Bill C-257 did not deal with section 87.4, which talks about the issue of a central service. My bill addresses section 87.4. That really is a major difference in the code. The Labour Code is extremely vast. It deals with several different sections. You can have 15,000 bills dealing with the Labour Code. If all of them deal with a different section, a different part of it, then it is votable.

It's the same thing, to use the analogy of the car. You can talk about 15 bills on a Mustang, but if all of them address different issues, whether it be tires, seat belts, or whatever, it's still different issues that you're dealing with, even though the subject may be the same. That already has been ruled on.

I've quoted you from Speaker Fraser, where he said that “there could be several bills addressing the same subject but if the approaches to the issues are different, the Chair could deem it to be sufficient and distinct.” That's a ruling of the Speaker in 1989.

Mr. Chair, I just want to appeal to the committee. Notwithstanding the fact that you could have the same subject, if the issue and the content are different, which is what I'm trying to address in my remarks, then it is votable.

Finally, I would say, quite frankly--and this is a totally different issue, Mr. Chair--that I don't understand the nature of the subcommittee and why it deals in camera. I don't see why it's so confidential that members who put a bill forward cannot even attend these hearings to defend their own bill. I don't know what the arguments were that were used in the committee, for and against my bill. Quite frankly, I was a little stunned by the fact that there is even a subcommittee that meets in camera, that does not inform the authors of the bill that they're having a meeting, and you cannot even present arguments.

I think this committee should in fact look at changing that. I don't think it's fair that there's a committee that meets out there, in camera, and you can't, as a member of this House, bring arguments forward to support the votability of your own bill.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to re-establish some facts. The subcommittee was divided on the question of whether it was votable or not. In my view, it was votable because it was different from Bill C-257. Bill C-415 deals with essential services while Bill C-257 does not.

We wanted to make amendments, as Ms. Robillard explained. The Speaker said that that exceeded the scope of the bill. We came back with a bill that dealt with replacement workers, and that in addition dealt with essential services, which was not the case for the other bill. At the subcommittee, we were not in agreement because the chair had to make the decision. That is what happened. I am still in favour of Bill C-415.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to advance a procedural argument. It is to say that the subcommittee had already ruled on this. Obviously the discussion the subcommittee had was in camera, so we're not privy to what their discussions were and why they came up with the decision they did; suffice it to say that they determined this bill was non-votable. Even though Mr. Silva has a perfect right to appeal to this committee, the larger committee, I think we should advance with a great deal of caution, because clearly there are political agendas at work here. It's no secret that the NDP would like to see this bill enacted in any form, because they don't want to see replacement workers during a strike under any circumstances.

For a standing committee to overrule a decision by a subcommittee is something we should take very seriously. Unless there is an entirely compelling reason for us to overrule it, I think we are bound to uphold the ruling of the original subcommittee. That's why they were put in place--to decide these matters, to begin with. Unless arguments can be advanced to demonstrate clearly that the subcommittee did not consider a certain aspect or a certain argument, I don't believe this committee should be in a position to arbitrarily overrule the subcommittee decision just because they have a political agenda at work.

Again, we are at a bit of a disadvantage because we don't know the discussion that took place--it was in camera--but I do feel comfortable that the subcommittee carefully considered both Bill C-257 and Bill C-415, spent a great deal of time examining the criteria established as to votability and non-votability, and came up with a decision based on those criteria. For this committee to arbitrarily say we want to overturn that because we like the bill in whatever form it may take is something we should avoid.

I believe the subcommittee did its work. I have not yet heard an argument around this table that demonstrates to me that there was an aspect of the bill that was not considered by the subcommittee; therefore, if they did their work with all due diligence, I think we should respect their opinion and their decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'd like to start off by thanking Mr. Silva for coming to make his presentation today and for trying to shed some light on this.

I know my colleague Mr. Reid is talking about the two different sets of standing orders that are driving this.

It's my thought, and I think it's accurate, that Bill C-415 is substantially similar to Bill C-257 in the sense that they both have the same stated purpose. They're both acts to amend the Canada Labour Code for the use of replacement workers in a strike. If on the surface that doesn't make them substantially similar, and we only have to meet a criterion of substantially similar, they both attempt to accomplish the same thing, which is the use of replacement workers in the case of a strike. Full stop.

That starts me off by saying we've already met the criteria. They are substantially similar because they're trying to accomplish the same thing. But let's take it a little further.

In this case, I'll take the example of two beautiful, candy-apple red Mustangs sitting in a parking lot. I know that I love them both, and I'll even take the red colour. One has a CD player, and of course, the other has a satellite radio. They have some different options, but I think anybody looking at them would say the two cars are substantially similar, even though they have a couple of different options.

I look at these two bills in a similar way. They accomplish the same thing. They look to accomplish the same thing. They are substantially the same thing. There are a couple of different options built into one.

To address the other piece, I know Mr. Reid has the standing orders that talk about this. But talking about the Speaker ruling it out of order in the case of Bill C-257 or ruling it in order in the case of Bill C-415, it's exactly that. It's ruling it in order or out of order; it's not ruling it votable or non-votable.

Many bills that come forward in this House are ruled in order and out of order. They're still discussed during private members' business to the point of talking about which way they were voted on. It can certainly be in order in the sense that it's in order and it can be discussed in the House.

But the criterion of the subcommittee on private members' business and the work of this committee today is on whether it is votable or not. It's not whether it's in order or not. The Speaker rules on whether or not it's in order. This committee is only ruling on the fact of whether or not it's votable at the end of the day because it is substantially similar to another bill that we've already voted on in this House.

I give to you the point that it is, and I'll stop at that point.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, thanks to Mr. Silva for being here and putting forward such a cogent brief for us to be able to crystallize exactly what we're talking about and to understand what's occurred.

Yes, there may be slightly different criteria that the Speaker would use and the subcommittee on votability would use. Although there seems to be a stunning contradiction if we say the amendments to Bill C-257 were out of order and went beyond the original scope of the bill, yet we also say Bill C-415 is non-votable because it's substantially the same. There seems to be a logical gap there for amendments being beyond the scope of the bill, and the new bill that actually seeks to put forward those amendments is not substantially different.

Perhaps Mr. Silva can comment on it. If I understand his presentation correctly, we seem to have two contradictory results. If it's within the power of this committee to correct what would be an illogical situation, I think we should discuss if it is possible to do that.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's quite all right, Mr. Chair.

I'm here basically to appeal to the wisdom of this committee to in fact have my bill proceed in the House.

As I was mentioning to you, Mr. Chair, I had quoted the government House leader. The Speaker now has, also in relation to my amendments to Bill C-257, basically said that the amendments deal with three sections in the Canada Labour Code: section 87.6, section 94, and section 100. The section dealing with essential services was basically dealing with section 87.4, which is the provision on essential services.

Basically, the Speaker concluded that, “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.”

In other words, the Speaker declared that by “importing the new concept of essential services” and by seeking to “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”, the amendment went beyond the scope of the original bill. Therefore, in order to address these issues, an entirely new bill would need to be drafted to incorporate these concepts.

As noted, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 both address the issue of banning replacement workers, but they do so by using different means. And Bill C-415 is larger in scope than Bill C-257.

According to the ruling in 1989 by the Speaker of the House, a bill that addresses the same subject but achieves its goals by different means is sufficiently distinct to remain votable.

In a 1989 ruling, Speaker Fraser clarified that for two or more items to be substantially the same, they must have the same purpose and they have to achieve their same purpose by the same means. Thus, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if their approaches of the issues are different, the Chair could deem that to be sufficiently distinct.

This is from page 898 of Marleau and Montpetit, lines 23 to 27.

Bill C-415 meets the requirement of uniqueness and should remain votable. Given all the evidence, it is clear that Bill C-415's inclusion of the two essential service amendments makes it distinct from Bill C-257, by the Speaker's own ruling. The rules of the House clearly dictate that bills dealing with similar issues but addressing them using different means are votable.

The Speaker of the House, upon examination of the amendments, ruled them to be out of order, as were the amendments that I put forward. But dealing with section 87.4, which is a new section, in fact, makes this bill, in my mind, votable.

Given all these facts, I appeal to this committee to agree that Bill C-415 proceed and is in fact votable.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

First, I'd like to begin by saying that although prima facie both bills seem to be dealing with the same topic, it is important to note, Mr. Chair, that they are materially different, both in scope and in the content of the bills. In fact, it is important, for me to outline these differences, that I quote both the comments made by the government House leader in the House of Commons and the comments made by the Speaker, so that we could determine that both the Speaker and the House leader had ruled that the amendments I put forward initially in relation to Bill C-257 went beyond the scope and, in fact, change the content of the bill.

The government House leader challenged some of the amendments on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill, as outlined in Marleau and Montpetit, lines 9 to 11:

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:

it is not relevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion or exceeds the scope of the motion, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice);

This is a quote from the government House leader in relation to my amendments to Bill C-257.

The Speaker of the House, upon examination of the amendments, ruled them to be out of order:

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...

Opposition Motion--Finance

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

I will start off my comments by saying I find it almost amusing to hear some of the comments coming from the members opposite, particularly the member for Scarborough Centre, who just finished speaking. He made many comments quoting campaign commitments that this party and this government made in the last campaign with respect to income trusts.

He is quite right. We said that we would not tax income trusts. We ended up doing just that. The Prime Minister has stated publicly for the record that it was the toughest decision he ever had to make, but he also explained the reasons why. We were rapidly moving into an income trust society with the announcements from BCE and Telus that they were planning to move into income trusts.

What the member for Scarborough Centre continued to say, and the example he tried to present, that once we make a commitment, we cannot, come hell or high water, go back on that commitment. He used example after example.

I am confused. I remember back prior to the 2006 election when the former finance minister, the hon. member for Wascana, mused out loud whether the government at the time, the former Liberal government, would want to tax income trusts.

We all know the story. The markets went crazy. Insiders on Bay Street seemed to profit from his announcement. He finally came back and, in my opinion, due to a lack of political courage, made the statement, “We will not tax income trusts”. It was a commitment. Yet now, in the motion before the House, the official opposition is talking about a 10% tax on income trusts, not the 31.5% tax that we had said, which would level the playing field between trusts and other corporations. The Liberals are saying that they would tax it 10%.

The member may not be in a position to answer this question. How do we square that circle? On the one hand he is accusing the government of breaking a commitment that he says should be firm and cast in stone, not to tax income trusts. Yet the Liberals made the same commitment, but now they are saying that they will tax it at 10% only.

Are the Liberals breaking a commitment by degree? Are they suggesting that perhaps on the one hand the government of the day, because the Liberals happen to be in political opposition, cannot break a commitment, but they can, that it is okay as long as it is less than the taxation system the Conservatives want? It does not make any sense. He is saying a commitment is a commitment, yet with the Liberals apparently a commitment is not a commitment.

We have seen this act before. I have seen this movie many times before, flip-flop after flip-flop. We see it continually in the House every time we seem to have a controversial vote. The opinions and the position that the Liberals took when they were in government is contrary to the position they are now taking as the official opposition.

A case in point is the recent Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-257,, which dealt with replacement worker legislation. This type of private member's bill, this initiative, has been before the House over the past number of years at least 11 times. When the Liberal party was in power, when it was the government of the day, every time that private member's bill, or that suggestion came forward to ban replacement workers, that party opposed it, vehemently, vigorously and without question.

However, now that the Liberals are in opposition, they support it. In fact, even though Bill C-257, was defeated, a Liberal backbencher is now introducing yet another private member's bill calling on the ban of replacement workers.

For anyone on the Liberal side of the House to suggest that this government has a problem honouring its commitments, I suggest they take a good hard look in the mirror.

It is not just Bill C-257. We have seen time and time again the Leader of the Opposition, since he has been elected leader of the Liberal Party, continually change his opinion on very important matters. This speaks to the lack of credibility that I think most Canadians have with the Liberal Party these days.

Let me give members a few examples. First, let us talk about what seems to be the favourite subject of the Leader of the Opposition, which is Kyoto. There was a time not too long ago, and of course we have all the quotes if the members opposite would care to listen to them once again, when the leader of the official opposition party said that--

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

I want to reiterate what my colleague was saying. This is not the way to legislate. We're going back to the same opposition gong show that we had with Bill C-257. Again, we're dealing with an ad hoc piece of legislation. I cannot believe that the NDP is making 12 amendments to their own bill. That's astounding to me. We're down to 55 minutes to try to go through this all and we're still on the first amendment.

Do we have a copy of the amendments yet? Have we been provided with a copy of Ms. Chow's amendments?

Bill C-415--Canada Labour Code--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on May 1, 2007, concerning Bill C-415 standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport and Bill C-257 which, until recently, stood on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau. Both bills amend the Canada Labour Code in relation to replacement workers.

I would like to thank the hon. Government House Leader for raising this matter, as well as the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for his intervention.

The hon. government House leader began by reminding the Chair that it has already been obliged to rule on the issue of the similarity of another bill, Bill C-295, to Bill C-257. He commented that Bill C-415 is thus the third bill banning the use of replacement workers introduced in this Parliament alone.

The hon. government House leader expressed the view that Bill C-415 and Bill C-257 share the same purpose, namely, the banning of replacement workers; that they both accomplish this purpose by amendments to the Canada Labour Code; and that they differ only in one clause and one subsection. He reminded the Chair that Standing Order 86(4) prohibits the consideration of two items of private members' business “so similar as to be substantially the same” and cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 476 and 477, to the effect that, “two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of”.

The hon. government House leader referred again to the ruling delivered on November 7, 2006 with respect to the alleged similarity between Bill C-257 and Bill C-295. He argued that the principle underlying the Chair's decision not to allow further consideration of Bill C-295, that the two bills “have exactly the same objective”, is equally applicable to Bill C-257 and Bill C-415. He dismissed provisions of the latter bill safeguarding essential services during a strike as ancillary to its purpose and cautioned the Chair that a decision to permit further consideration of Bill C-415 would amount to a revisiting of its ruling on Bill C-257.

In his brief submission, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River pointed out that a determination, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to the votability of Bill C-415 is imminent and may be material to the disposition of this point of order.

Having reviewed these submissions with care, the Chair takes the view that the fundamental question before it may be phrased this way: Would any motion or decision of the House in connection with Bill C-415 be out of order because of the bill's similarity in substance to Bill C-257?

Of considerable relevance in this regard is the ruling delivered on February 27, 2007 with respect to the admissibility of several amendments to Bill C-257 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was the hon. government House leader who presented so persuasive a case against the admissibility of those amendments that the Chair accepted his arguments. Ironically, his very persuasiveness on that occasion presents considerable difficulty to the case he is making today.

Two of these amendments to Bill C-257 provided for the maintenance of essential services in terms similar to specific provisions found in Bill C-415 and, of course, not originally included in Bill C-257. My ruling determined that these amendments exceeded the scope of Bill C-257 and I declined to accept arguments that they served only to clarify the bill's provisions with respect to replacement workers.

On April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Fraser warned that a committee:

—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.

In his point of order, the hon. government House leader claimed that the two bills “have exactly the same objective”, relying in part on the fact that both bills accomplish their objectives by means of amendments to the Canada Labour Code. While this is certainly the case, only Bill C-415 amends section 87.4 of the Code which deals with the concept of essential services. It thus incorporates provisions not originally contemplated in Bill C-257 whose scope, as confirmed by my earlier ruling, was judged to be limited to measures regulating the use of replacement workers during a strike. In the view of the Chair, the amendments to section 87.4 of the Code included in Bill C-415 also invalidate any claim that the two bills, in Mr. Speaker Fraser's words, “obtain their purpose by the same means”.

A bill regulating the use of replacement workers need not deal with essential services. Providing for essential services in the event of the strike could quite legitimately have been the objective of a separate bill. Because of the inclusion of essential services in it, Bill C-415 has a broader scope than Bill C-257, despite similarity in addressing the issue of replacement workers.

Consequently, in fulfilling its duty pursuant to Standing Order 86, the Chair does not find that Bill C-415 is substantially the same as Bill C-257 and accordingly, the consideration of Bill C-415 may proceed.

I would like once again to thank the hon. government House leader for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I understand completely what you are proposing. By way of corroboration, I am going to tell you about a precedent. Precedents can guide our decisions.

Bill C-257 was approved in committee. Amendments had been made, and there was consensus among committee members that the amendments were in order, despite the view of the chair. A vote was taken and the ruling of the chair was overturned. When the bill went back to the House, the Speaker felt that the changes went beyond the scope of the original bill. The amendments were not accepted, and we went back to the original bill that had been tabled in the House to begin with.

So I would like to know if, based on the precedent of Bill C-257, the same thing could happen to the bill we are considering today.

Bill C-415—Canada Labour Code

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two very short points that may be helpful or not helpful, depending on the outcome.

First, Bill C-257 is not now on the order paper. Bill C-415 is. Therefore, there is not, on the face of the order paper, a conflict between these bills.

Second, you will probably be aware that the private members' business bundle of which Bill C-415 forms a part is still yet to go through a private members' business subcommittee, a procedure that would look at all private members' business for votability. It might be that your decision could await the outcome of that procedure, which I believe is imminent. I do not believe that any of these new bills in the private members' business envelope will be coming before the House in the imminent future. They will come at a later date.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order regarding Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

I would first like to point out that bills to ban the use of replacement workers have been introduced six previous times since 2004, and defeated twice. In this Parliament alone, it is the third attempt at similar legislation, and the House has already voted against this idea.

Given that this bill is virtually identical to Bill C-257, with only one new clause and one new subsection, I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify two points.

First, I would ask for you to clarify whether it is in order for Bill C-415 to have been introduced. Standing Order 86(4) provides that the Speaker is responsible for determining whether two or more items that are similar can be placed on notice.

Mr. Speaker Fraser stated, on November 2, 1989, that a bill would not be placed on notice if it had the same purpose as another private member's bill before the House and if it met this purpose by the same means as that other bill.

Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 clearly have the same purpose, namely to ban the use of replacement workers. They also seek to meet this purpose by virtually the same means. They both amend the Canada Labour Code and are identical apart from one clause and one subsection. They contain the identical paragraph in their summaries, stating that their purpose:

—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.

Since Standing Order 86(4) does not specify that bills must be identical but they must “so similar as to be substantially the same”, I submit that Bill C-415 is so similar as to be substantially the same as Bill C-257, and I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify this issue for the House.

The second issue on which I request your ruling is whether this bill can be called for debate and vote. Marleau and Montpetit indicate at page 495:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House. Thus, for example, if a bill or motion is rejected, it cannot be revived in the same session.

Allowing Bill C-415 to proceed to a vote would be inconsistent with this rule and with the rule of anticipation. As Marleau and Montpetit note, at page 476:

—two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn, the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with.

On November 7, 2006, respecting Bill C-257 and Bill C-295, you ruled that the second bill could not proceed because:

—a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that 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.

There we were dealing with a question of similar legislation. Bill C-295, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 are aimed at the same objective on replacement workers.

I would argue to you, Mr. Speaker, and suggest to you with respect, that your ruling on November 7, 2006, applies equally in this case to Bill C-415. You indicated that you were at the time ruling on the issue bearing in mind Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling of November 2, 1989.

I reiterate that Bill C-415 has exactly the same objective as Bill C-257, which the House rejected at report stage on March 21. As a result, allowing Bill C-415 to proceed would mean that the House would reconsider its decision with respect to Bill C-257.

The purpose of Bill C-415 is exactly the same as that of Bill C-257, namely to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees during a strike or lockout.

Bill C-415 seeks to do so by the same means as Bill C-257, namely by amending subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

Members opposite may suggest that the bills are not similar and that Bill C-415 differs because it refers to the preservation of essential services during a strike. However, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to ban replacement workers.

The apparent difference from Bill C-257 is not in fact a material one. Bill C-415 would not create a new category of essential services. Nor would it designate a group of workers to perform this work. Rather, it simply recasts as “essential services” existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which obliges services to be maintained during a strike or lockout in order to “prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

Since Bill C-257 would not have affected these existing protections in the code, simply adding a provision about essential services to Bill C-415 does make it substantively any different than Bill C-257.

Therefore, the purpose of both these bills is simply to ban the use of replacement workers. As I have already indicated, Bill C-415 does not alter the means to use to achieve this purpose which is primarily by amending section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

By allowing Bill C-415 to proceed, Mr. Speaker, you will be asking the House to revisit its decision on Bill C-257, which is not permitted. I submit that it should not be called for debate or for a vote and would ask that you rule on that question.

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

Okay.

Moving on, then, we have a bit of a history of ad hoc legislation coming through this committee. We dealt with it on Bill C-257 and we dealt with it on the Bloc EI bill, and this strikes me as very similar. You made a comparison earlier to the Canada Health Act, and I'm wondering, compared to this legislation being brought up in quite a murky private member's bill, can you maybe compare that to...?

You know, how long did it take to negotiate the Canada Health Act? Do you have any idea? Was it a couple of weeks, or years and years maybe?

Bill C-52—Budget Implementation Act, 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond today to the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River concerning Bill C-52, the budget implementation act.

The member argued that clause 13(1) of the bill respecting the application of the definition of “SIFT trust”, which is a specified investment flow-through trust, is not in keeping with the practices and customs of this House. In his view, the provision represents an inappropriate delegation of subordinate law and the member has asked that the Speaker rule that the clause be struck from the bill and the bill ordered reprinted.

As the Speaker has noted, this is a complex issue.

I appreciate the expertise of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River on matters of subordinate law. However, I submit that this is not a valid point of order, as there are no procedural authorities that preclude the House from legislating in this manner. In short, this is a matter for debate, which would be better dealt with by members in the House and at committee, rather than a procedural question for the Speaker to resolve.

Let me first briefly provide some background to this issue in order to assist the Chair.

The provision in question provides a rule for the application of the definition of “SIFT trust”. In particular, the provision sets out when a trust will be subject to the new rules pertaining to the taxation of income trusts.

Under the bill, a new trust will become a SIFT trust and therefore subject to the new rules for the taxation year in which it first meets the definition. However, for an existing trust, the SIFT trust definition will not apply, and therefore the new rules will not apply until the earlier of the 2011 taxation year, and the taxation year in which the trust exceeds the normal growth guidelines issues by the Department of Finance on December 15, 2006, unless that excess arose as a result of a prescribed transaction. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is quite technical.

To achieve this, the provision in question contains an incorporation by reference of the normal growth guidelines issued by the Department of Finance, to which I just referred. Incorporation by reference is a proper and legal approach to enacting legislation. It is neither rare nor unusual in legislation. An examination of Canadian statutory law would reveal many instances where incorporation by reference has been used in just this fashion.

For example, sections 181.3 and 190.13 of the Income Tax Act refer to the use of risk-weighting guidelines issued by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in order to determine the amount of capital of an authorized foreign bank. These guidelines are defined in section 248 of the Income Tax Act and are issued pursuant to section 600 of the Bank Act. I could go on with other examples, but I am sure the Speaker would find that a tad tedious.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon for legislation to allow documents incorporated by reference in legislation to be changed from time to time. For example, section 11 of the Customs Tariff incorporate by reference the Compendium of Classification Opinions to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System published by the Customs Co-Operation Council, as amended from time to time.

Therefore, it is not just in the Income Tax Act, but in other legislation as well that we see this same approach. As I said, we could go on at length, but I shall save us and save the House that lengthy example. I think the Speaker has ample precedent there.

In terms of procedural arguments, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River essentially made three points. He has argued: first, that the provision is not in keeping with the practices and customs of this House; second, that the clause attempts to exempt itself from rules regarding parliamentary scrutiny of subordinate law; and third, that the clause does not comply with the government's own internal rules on legislative drafting.

Let me address each point in turn.

On the first point, the practices and customs of the House, the essence of the member's argument appears to be that the clause does not conform to the rules of the House. The government submits that Bill C-52 and all of its provisions are properly before the House. The provision in question was included in a detailed notice of ways and means motion tabled on March 27, which was adopted by the House on March 28.

The ways and means motion adopted by the House on March 28 included the identical provision that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River questioned. Therefore, the provision in question is consistent with the rules governing financial procedures.

I submit there are no procedural grounds for the clause to be ruled out of order. Rather, this is an issue that would be more appropriately considered by the Standing Committee on Finance in its review of the bill. Should the member wish to improve the text of the bill, he and his colleagues are free to propose amendments to the bill in committee.

Citation 322 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's states that:

When a bill is under consideration, points of order should not be raised on matters which could be disposed of by moving amendments.

This clearly falls into that category.

With the exception of very limited circumstances, it is clear that only the House itself can decide to alter the content of bills

The 22nd edition of Erskine May states, at pages 544 and 545, the following:

Throughout all these stages and proceedings the bill itself continues in the custody of the Public Bill Office, and, with the exceptions mentioned below, no alteration whatever is permitted to be made in it, without the express authority of the House or a committee, in the form of an amendment regularly put from the Chair, and recorded by the Clerks at the Table or by the clerks from the Public Bill Office in standing committee.

As Marleau and Montpetit note, at page 620:

The Chair has clearly ruled in the past that when a bill is in possession of the House, it becomes its property, and cannot be materially altered, except by the House itself. Only “mere clerical alterations” are allowed. By issuing a corrigendum to the bill, the Speaker may correct any obvious printing or clerical error, at any stage of the bill. On the other hand, no substantive change may be made to the manner in which a bill was worded when it was introduced, or when a committee reported on it, otherwise than by an amendment passed by the House.

There would appear, Mr. Speaker, to be only two circumstances where the Speaker can make alterations to a bill: first, where the Chair has ruled that amendments adopted by a committee are beyond the scope of the bill, as you had recently ruled with respect to committee amendments to Bill C-257, the replacement workers bill; or second, when there is a clear printing error. As you noted in a ruling on February 23, 2004, this is only done in rare cases where there is a manifest error in the printing of the bill.

Apart from these limited instances, I submit that it is up to the House to decide whether or not to adopt a bill with our without amendment.

Even if you were, Mr. Speaker, to conclude that the provision of the bill as currently drafted is unacceptable, I would submit that the House and the committee should, first, have an opportunity to review the matter and consider possible amendments to improve the text of the bill.

In the event the provision in question remains in the bill at third reading, I submit that it is at that point when the Speaker should intervene on this matter in the unlikely case you think it is necessary.

It is analogous to the procedure that we use with private members' bills when we have those flaws. Committee exists and represents an opportunity for the flaws to be cured. If this is a flaw, indeed, that would be the place at which it could happen. The Speaker, if faced by a change that is unacceptable, does not need to put the question on that clause at third reading.

On the question of the review of statutory instruments, the hon. member has also suggested that the provision of the bill exempts itself from the rules of the House regarding parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. It is not uncommon for bills to establish forms of delegated legislation that are not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act. It is perfectly within the prerogatives of the House to pass legislation to that effect. As I have indicated earlier, it is not the role of the Speaker to decide whether such legislation is appropriation.

The third point is the government guide for drafting.

The hon. member also suggested that the provision in question is not consistent with the government's “Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations”.

The guide sets out principles for making legislation and regulations, as well as government processes for ensuring that statutory and legislative changes are made in an effective way.

Apart from the fact that this guide is by no means a procedural authority, I would also point out that the guide does not prevent the government from introducing legislation such as the provision in question, provided that the cabinet has authorized such legislation.

In conclusion, I would submit that clause 13(1) of Bill C-52 is properly before the House. This is a matter for debate. The issue is properly in the hands of the House and the finance committee will be better placed to examine whether this section of the bill is appropriate or whether it can be improved.

As always, I understand that the Minister of Finance is prepared to discuss this matter, and all matters related to the bill, further in committee. Indeed, if there is any flaw, committee can certainly be curative in so doing.

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

Based on how much it gets talked about in the House, I want to say that this is obviously an issue that's really, really important. It's an important issue in each of our ridings. There are strong feelings on all sides and many, many different viewpoints. I know that in my riding it's a very significant issue.

I take a bit of contention with Mr. Lessard's characterization of everybody coming to testify willy-nilly. There are a significant number of parents in this country who unfortunately do not have a large organized lobby funded by the former Liberal government. They may want to testify. They have a viewpoint that needs to be heard. I think it's important that they have their views heard.

This is not a mad rush. We gave many days to Bill C-257. Obviously I'm not looking to have a situation where we sit for as long as we did on Bill C-257; we have other things we need to consider. But this is really important for people on both sides of the issue. It is something that Canadians are very passionate about, and we need to give this a proper hearing.

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

It seems to me it would be best to add a couple of days. I'm sure there will be more witnesses, and we already know of some who will want to take part in this. As we remember from Bill C-257, it got to the point where we had so many witnesses that you didn't have a chance to hear from everybody.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would be in favour of that.

Can we just add a couple of witnesses, then? I have, in my province, people who set up their own day care with government help, and they would like to put their position on record, so I wonder, if we're going to extend it, whether we can extend by a couple of witnesses.

We were a little lax on this end: we were so caught up in employability and Bill C-257 that this slipped by us.

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague mistook me for my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who asked a question about the amendments his party might want to put forward during the committee review.

I would just like to emphasize that in my speech, I said that the vote on second reading of Bill C-257 led me to believe that most of the members of this House agree with the principle of the bill, and that I welcome the idea of passing a bill to that effect. I believe that my colleague and I agree that we will soon see a private member's bill to abolish the use of replacement workers for employees and employers under federal jurisdiction. However, I do not agree at all with what my colleague said about improving the employment insurance regime.

Need I remind my Liberal colleague that it was the Liberal government that slashed this program so drastically and ruthlessly? The Liberals are the reason we are now forced to do whatever we can to improve the program. For many years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking for the creation of an independent employment insurance fund that would enable employers and employees to manage their contributions to the program themselves.

I would like the member to say that she would support a bill to create an independent employment insurance fund. I am very eager to hear her say it. All of my Bloc Québécois colleagues are very eager for the Liberal Party of Canada to finally decide to hand over complete control of contributions to employers and employees in order to help workers who need help when they lose their jobs.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for his remarks on Bill S-2 and assure him that we agree with him on several of his points, one of which was about the primary nature of the safety of every worker in Canada, and I believe that most if not all members of the House agree.

We also believe in the dignity of all work, which leads to his idea, stated rather well, that the efforts of all workers, no matter how high or low their station, pool together in a richness that improves the quality of life for all.

I will disagree with his interpretation of the history of Bill C-257, though. He knows very well that most members in the House were in favour of the principle of the bill, but testimony at committee suggested that it was unworkable in the form it was in. In order to support the principle of the bill and get around the unworkability, the Liberal critic at committee presented a series of amendments. Unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order as being beyond the scope of the bill and therefore Liberal members had to vote against the bill when it came back to the House.

However, as proof of our commitment to the principle of Bill C-257, the Liberal member for Davenport tabled another bill the next day with the same principle, but with a more solid underpinning of detail that would make the bill workable, and therefore we would achieve the principle desired.

The member also said that on EI reform it makes no difference whether the government is Liberal or Conservative. I am not sure where he was last night, but just last evening we voted on a private member's bill put forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, an NDP member, and he could have seen the split in the House on that. The Liberals all voted in favour and the Conservatives voted against, so his rolling together of the two parties in his description was proven untrue only last night.

In his questions earlier in this debate, the member raised the possibility of amendments at report stage, and he asked me whether my party would consider them, but I did not hear any suggestions in his speech. At this time I would like to ask him if he is planning to present amendments at report stage. If so, would he like to describe one or two of them?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, our societies' greatest strength, the driving force behind our economies and the factor that sets them apart, is the human capital we can rely on. This driving force is varied, dynamic and rich. We have a wealth of people whose abilities are maximized by the favourable environment we can foster and even shape thanks to the concerted contributions of individuals. When I think of the human capital we have here, I see business leaders who are tuned into small shifts and global trends and who adapt their strategies and develop the kind of clear vision that enables them to seize opportunities and use those opportunities to advance all of our communities. I think of researchers who apply their advanced knowledge to their ongoing search for better and newer ideas, thus enabling all of our fellow humans to live a better life and to dream of always living a better life. I remember whose who, every morning, leave their homes to do a job that we ask them to dedicate themselves to, and make the most of their skills to do better. These people, who do their very best every day, are the ones who enable us, as a community, to aspire to a better life.

That is why I am so pleased to rise in this House to address the Senate's Bill S-2, an Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. Needless to say, my party supports the principle underlying this bill because its reason for being is quality of life. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois believes that when it comes to hazardous materials, it is vital to keep in mind worker safety and to base all decisions on that imperative.

Mr. Speaker, you are probably not surprised to hear me say that. The members of the Bloc Québécois feel a profound desire to respect, listen to and protect workers, and we have intervened on many occasions in this House, as well as in the various ridings in Quebec and across Canada, to ensure that the rights of workers are respected.

Thus, for the benefit of my colleagues and our viewers, I would like to remind the House about a number of bills we have brought forward and defended in recent years, always driven by this desire to serve our fellow citizens and defend their interests.

First of all, I would like to mention Bill C-257, to ban the use of replacement workers in businesses under federal jurisdiction. Had it not been for the mysterious flip-flop by the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, this bill would have passed the report stage by now.

Members may recall that, when the Liberal Party leadership race was in full swing, my colleagues, the hon. member for Gatineau and the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, had obtained the consent of a majority of the members of this House, thus allowing the bill to pass second reading and be referred to committee. As demonstrated by this favourable vote at second reading, a majority of my colleagues are in favour of the underlying principle of this bill. Therefore, I am thoroughly convinced that we will see the fruits of this important contribution from Bloc Québécois in the very near future. Perseverance and hard work are our trademark, as you know.

Additionally, looking at the Order Paper, we see a bill concerning preventive withdrawal, the purpose of which is to provide pregnant women in Quebec who work in companies under federal jurisdiction with the same benefits of preventive withdrawal as other working women in Quebec. This is a matter of fairness.

The purpose of this bill is to allow these workers to make better choices for their families by having the same options similar workers already have.

There is also Bill C-269 to improve the employment insurance system. It is disgusting that the Government of Canada—whether Liberal or Conservative, it makes no difference—is as stingy as it is when it comes to this insurance program. The government does not inject anything into this program, not a dollar, not one red cent, but it collects surpluses from the contributions paid by the employers, who earn profits on their investment, and by the employees, who earn salaries from their hard work.

I would also quickly like to talk about how the Bloc Québécois has been fighting on behalf of workers aged 55, 60, or 63, who are victims of the mass layoffs that have been plaguing Quebec for the past few years, in order that these workers can reach retirement with dignity.

Including an income support program for older workers in the last throne speech, following pressure from my colleagues and me, is the start of recognizing that these workers deserve respect and, I would hope, the beginning of the end of a crazy idea held by certain Conservative ministers. According to them, it is easy for a 56-year-old worker with very little education who has worked with his hands his whole life, to go back to school to receive training in order to work in another area of activity until he is 65. Providing one-size-fits-all training is a big mistake, not to mention disrespectful of the people who have contributed to building our society.

Thus, we believe, since we always put our fellow citizens at the centre of our thoughts, our actions and our decision making, that it is essential to use the best possible framework for managing the use of hazardous materials. It seems redundant to say so, since it is so obvious that handling hazardous materials should be done following the most specific, rigorous and comprehensive parameters, both in their wording and application. Nonetheless, I think it is important to provide a few clarifications on how hazardous materials are currently managed in Canada.

The use of hazardous materials is governed by the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). WHMIS is a combination of laws, regulations and procedures to protect workers by warning them about illnesses and injuries that could result from using hazardous chemical products in the workplace.

Quebec, the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together to implement the system.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission (HMIRC) states that:

Under WHMIS, manufacturers and distributors of controlled (hazardous) products must provide information on the health and safety risks associated with their products, together with instructions for safe handling, storage, transportation, disposal and first-aid treatment. This information is conveyed by the product’s mandatory Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and label—

Each product's material safety data sheet must contain certain elements: it must list all hazardous ingredients in the product, its toxicological properties, as well as any safety precautions to be taken when the product is used. The material safety data sheet must also indicate first-aid treatment required in case of exposure to the product.

If any information required for the material safety data sheet deals with trade secrets, and revealing them would have serious consequences, there is a mechanism in place to determine the relevance of not posting all the information, and also to protect the rights of workers.

That mechanism is the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

Having said that, in reference to Bill S-2, it seems clear to us that the amendments to the act have been requested by the main stakeholders and, as a result, they should be adopted. These amendments have been unanimously endorsed by the members of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, also known as HMIRC. The commission includes representatives of workers, suppliers, employers, and the federal, provincial and territorial governments; in other words, all the parties who are affected by this legislative measure.

Since I have started to speak about HMIRC, I will very briefly describe the commission before dealing with the substance of the bill.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission was established in 1987 under the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act as part of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, also known as WHMIS.

HMIRC is an independent agency that is accountable to the Parliament of Canada, through the Minister of Health. Its mandate is “to help safeguard both workers and trade secrets in Canada’s chemical industry”. It evaluates request from companies to withhold publication of some substances in certain products in order to protect trade secrets.

As a result, when a company wishes to obtain an exemption from the general obligation to disclose because it wishes to safeguard a trade secret—that might be the nature or the concentration of a harmful ingredient in a product that it manufactures—it must submit a request for exemption to HMIRC. The request is recorded by HMIRC, which determines whether the request for exemption is appropriate.

The mandate of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is also to evaluate material safety data sheets and labels on hazardous materials to ensure compliance with the act.

As part of its mandate, in the fall of 2002, the council of governors of the commission formally and unanimously recommended to the then minister of health the amendments that are the subject of Bill S-2. These amendments are intended to correct shortcomings in three areas: the complexity of information of a commercial nature, the lack of a voluntary procedure for modification of a material safety data sheet, and finally, a lack of flexibility in the exchange of information between the commission and an independent board in an appeal process.

In seeking to improve the current process, Bill S-2 thus aims to achieve three distinct objectives.

First, it allows companies seeking an exemption from the general rules concerning the listing of hazardous ingredients to make a declaration that information in respect of which an exemption is claimed is confidential business information and that information substantiating the claim is available and will be provided on request, instead of de facto providing all the information.

Second, it allows the companies to give a voluntary undertaking to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to make changes to a material safety data sheet or label listing hazardous ingredients to bring it into compliance with the Hazardous Products Act or the Canada Labour Code.

Finally, it allows the limited participation of the commission before an appeal board.

To address these three shortcomings identified by the HMIRC, which are—it might be a good idea to mention them again—the complexity of economic information, the absence of a voluntary data sheet correction process, and the lack of flexibility in the exchange of information between the commission and the independent boards during the appeal process, it is proposed to make three changes to the current legislation.

First, clauses 1, 2 and 8 of the bill change the requirements under subsection 11(4) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, to specify that, in their claims for exemption, companies do not have to provide all the documentation previously required. The purpose of this change is to reduce the complexity of the applications, especially when the information does not help the HMIRC make a decision on the economic considerations involved.

At present, companies seeking an exemption have to submit detailed documentation on the steps they have taken to protect confidentiality with respect to the ingredients used in their products and on the potential financial implications of disclosure.

In her testimony given to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on May 17, 2006, Sharon Watts, vice-president of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, indicated when HMIRC would require full documentation:

The commission will require full documentation to support a claim for exemption from disclosure when an affected party challenges a claim or when a claim is selected through a verification scheme that we will set up to discourage false or frivolous claims.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the bill amend articles 16 and 17 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act in order to establish a new mechanism for having companies voluntarily amend the material safety data sheet. With this new mechanism, when a company requests an exemption, a screening officer may “send an undertaking to the claimant setting out the measures that are required to be taken for the purpose of compliance” with those provisions governing dangerous goods contained in the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code.

The purpose of this amendment is twofold: to ensure that changes to material safety data sheets and labels are made more quickly and to ensure that companies acting in good faith will not be issued an order by HMIRC, as this can imply that they are reluctant to fulfill their responsibilities.

In comparison, current legislation requires the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to issue a formal order for compliance, even if the company that requests an exemption is ready to respect its obligations and to make the necessary changes after being served notice.

The process, under the present legislation, is time consuming and strict. Thus, when a breach is reported, an order is sent to the company that requested the exemption.

I see I only have one minute left, so I will conclude by saying that this order must be published in the Canada Gazette and is not enforceable until 75 days after publication. There are further delays to allow the company to appeal the order, or to comply with the order and produce a new data sheet.

According to members of the HMIRC, the new procedure introduced by Bill S-2 would speed up the amendment process considerably, but existing rules would still allow orders to be issued to uncooperative companies in cases of non-compliance with the rules and in the absence of a final undertaking.

If I may, I would like to skip over the third proposed amendment, and simply point out that, for all the reasons previously outlined, my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois and I support the principle of Bill S-2.

We urge the other members of this House to do the same, in the interest of workers and—

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for her question.

She said that the previous Liberal government did nothing for the least fortunate in society. I simply want to say to her that after curbing the deficit, which had reached $43 billion in 1993, we made the most significant income tax cuts this country has ever seen; $100 billion over five years.

In this budget, there are no tax cuts; there are tax hikes. When the Conservative government was elected in 2005, the tax rate for the first bracket was 15%. It was then increased to 15.25%. This year this figure is 15.5% on the first $35,000 of income. The non-taxable portion for individuals has increased as well. Taxes have therefore increased, which is the complete opposite of what we, the Liberals, did.

As far as the hon. member's question on Bill C-257 is concerned, I would like to tell her that I personally voted against it, but I that I did vote in favour of the bill in principle. I voted against the bill because it was incomplete and the essential services were not clearly defined. If we get a bill with the essential services and it is a complete bill, I will very likely change my vote. In my opinion, it is important for bills to be complete when they are passed in this House.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member concerning the fact that this budget does nothing to help ordinary working Canadians. However, the many years of empty Liberal promises were much the same, there is no doubt.

My question for the hon. member is this. When the Liberal Party had the opportunity to show its support for workers by supporting Bill C-257, an anti-scab bill, the Liberals voted against it, for the most part. Can the hon. member explain to the House the reasons behind this, if—as he says—the Liberals really want to support Canadian workers?

Canada Labour Code

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

moved that Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-257. The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study on employability in Canada will commence.

I would like to take time to thank all our witnesses for being here today as we get back to trying to finish off our employability study. We had some legislation that took a little precedence. You may have heard of Bill C-257. That took some time out of our schedule, so we're back at trying to work at finishing off the employability study. I want to thank you for all being very flexible with your schedules and being able to reschedule and come back to see us here in March.

Each group will get seven minutes for their opening comments. We'll start with one round of seven minutes each, and then we'll have a second round of five minutes, and hopefully if we have time, a third round of five minutes as well.

Why don't we just get started? We'll start with Mr. Badger and Mr. Laws from the Canadian Meat Council.

Welcome, gentlemen. You have seven minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to table three types of petitions today.

First and foremost, I have a petition urging members of this House to vote for Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) during the vote at third reading, in a few hours. This bill is extremely important.

Several hundreds of signatures are being added to the thousands that have already been tabled here in this House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-257, a bill that has historic significance for working families across Canada.

I come from the region of Timmins-James Bay and the people there have a long, historic memory of the need to fight for legislation like this because they remember their grandparents and parents telling them about the Noranda strike, the Kirkland Lake strike and the Dome strike in 1990. They have seen strikes in our lumber and paper mills and the incredible damage that has been done when scabs are allowed to cross picket lines.

There was a truce of some sort in the northern mining industry after the 1958 Inco strike for years. It never attempted to bring replacement workers through mine properties, not until Peggy Witte in Yellowknife broke that unspoken covenant. We saw the horrific damage that resulted. We saw it in Falconbridge in 2002 and in the Ekati mine recently in the Northwest Territories.

New Democrats know there is a need for legislation across this country that brings fairness. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about fairness and the need to have labour settled at the negotiating table where it needs to be done.

We were proud as New Democrats in October 2006 to see 167 members of the House stand and recognize the principle that fairness for working families and our union brothers and sisters is a principle that the federal government should stand up on. However, I began to worry after that because the numbers we were seeing in the House did not seem right.

We know where the Conservative Party stands. No matter what we agree or disagree on, the Conservative Party will at least say whose side it is on. It is very clear. It attacks working people straight, with no chaser. It is very up front.

I was interested with the position of our Liberal brothers and sisters. They were suddenly on the side of and concerned about working families. They sat hour after hour in committee and heard the recommendations. They were there for the planning of this bill.

They stood up at second reading in record numbers to say they were suddenly on the side of working families, but then they had a problem because they knew it was coming to third reading and they would actually have to make a decision as to whether they were finally going to stand up for working families or do what they always do, which is sell working families down the river. They needed an excuse. They needed to find a way to do their usual flip-flop.

In the Liberal back room, and people at home may not realize this, there is a glass case which has a sign that says, “In case of emergency, break”. It contains all the Liberal excuses that can be used. The new Liberal leader went to the back room after second reading, broke the glass and asked what was in it that the Liberals could use to damage the rights of working families. He said, “Why do we not offer an amendment on a provision for essential services and that way we will look like we are standing up for all Canadians? We will be sitting on the fence post once again where we normally are”.

However, what was understood was that this provision already exists in the Labour Code. It was a meaningless provision. What has been shown is that the Liberals are raising a chimera to the Canadian people, pretending that somehow they are taking a principled stand when everybody knows that once again they are selling working families down the river.

The new Liberal leader has a dog named Kyoto. I can tell everyone that his dog will not hunt. I bet that dog is like rest of his pack of hounds. I understand he now has a dog called “Tax Cuts” and another called “Maybe I am Tough on Crime but Maybe I am Not”. It depends on which way the dog is walking. Now we have a new dog in the pack.

The Liberal Party hates working families. We have to get a shorter name for the dog, but I can say that it is one ugly mutt, just like the rest of the broken promises that he carries around with him, with his little collar and chains. That is what we are seeing.

The people back home need to ask themselves a question. It is all about strategic voting. Who makes strategic votes in this country? It is people sitting in Calgary boardrooms asking whether they want to attack working families and take money out of their pockets, straight with no chaser, or with a little green scarf when they do it? That is what is being offered by the Liberal Party now. It has stood up with its green scarf and made a bunch of vague and empty promises that it has absolutely no intention of living up to because it never lives up to any of its promises.

This is the party that year after year floated the greatest fraud in Canadian history, called the red book. It just changed the numbers year after year. It changed the dates every year and so it was the 1993 red book, it was the 1998 red book, it was the 2000 red book, it was the 2003 red book. It was the same red book of empty promises.

The best thing of all, when the Liberals were finally exposed, the Canadian public finally said, “Do you mean year after year we've been listening to this same line and we never got anything delivered?”

Then the Liberals did something different and it is absolutely fascinating. They turned around and took the red book off and referred to the promises that they have delivered on. Now they are going across the country telling people that they had a plan for the environment and they were actually saving the planet. They blamed those rotten Conservatives, and they are very rotten as a party, but at least they are telling people where they are coming from.

The Liberals had child care fixed. They had everything fixed. Everything that they did not do year after year after year.

Why am I picking on the Liberal Party? It is very simple. The Liberals are standing up here today and betraying the working families of this country. One more time they are going to say, “On this day we're going to stand with you but when push comes to shove, when the time comes to stand up, when it is what side are you on”, we know what side they are on. They are not on the side of working families. They are not on the side of fairness. They are definitely on the side of putting it to average Canadians, like you and me, Mr. Speaker.

I am telling people back home to watch this vote. Watch to see if the new Liberal leader will have to whip the few members that he has with good conscience into voting to kill a bill that works for Canadians and a bill that the Liberals fundamentally do not want to have happen because they have stood against this legislation time and time again.

In conclusion I would like to say we have been through this bill ten times in the House. Ten times the working families of Canada have brought this bill forward. Ten times we have gone through all the arguments. Ten times we have heard the various excuses and reasons why it would not work.

However, we know at the end of the day those excuses do not hold water. The bill is a reasonable bill. The bill will bring labour peace rather than labour conflict. This is a bill that has been thought out. This is a bill that certainly will not in any way hinder the ability of the federal government to bring back to work legislation if it deems necessary. This is a bill that in no way will limit any minister's decision to say whether something is an essential service or not.

If members are hearing anything else on the bill then they are obviously hearing it from a Liberal because the Liberals do not believe in these things. They do not believe in putting into law the rights that will protect working families.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to this important bill to foster more harmonious labour relations between workers and employers under federal jurisdiction.

First, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford for his speech, which, in my opinion, put the entire issue into context quite well, and my colleague from Gatineau who agreed to champion this important bill. He did so with much dedication and skill. Since I represent the neighbouring riding, I have the honour of rubbing shoulders with my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who also championed this bill. She did so not just during the debate, but she also contributed to preparing it and ensuring that all parliamentarians were well aware of the extent of the problem.

Today, some are still against this bill, but not for lack of trying by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to make them understand. In my opinion they are against it because they did not want to understand.

We are dealing with a situation that is unacceptable on many levels. First, we are repeating what is happening in a number of other jurisdictions when it comes to sharing power between the provincial, Quebec and federal governments. We see what an imbalance this causes. We have seen this with the fiscal imbalance and with various positions on health, education and national defence. In that sense, a certain number of provinces, but Quebec in particular, have values and principles that often differ from those that are defended in this House and that do not represent what the public wants in any way.

We know that the Bloc Québécois circulated a petition to support Bill C-257. Some 46,000 people signed it in order to call on the House of Commons to pass this bill. It is therefore surprising today, after trying 10 times to get a similar bill passed, that the hon. members of this House are still opposed to it.

The purpose of this bill is to civilize labour relations among a certain number of employers because employers in businesses operating under federal jurisdiction do not all act accordingly. On several occasions, my colleague has mentioned a number of conflicts that have dragged on for a very long time but that should not have lasted for such a prolonged period. She has spoken of the conflicts at Vidéotron, Sécur, Cargill, and Radio-Nord Communications—which lasted 10, 3, 38 and 20 months respectively—and we could add others.

These conflicts were marked not only by their duration but also by the events that took place during the conflicts. The use of scabs—or replacement workers for the purists—leads to deep animosity, not only between the replacement workers and the strikers but also between the strikers and their employers. We must remember that, once the conflict is over, the parties that make the company function must resume harmonious labour relations and contribute to the profitable operation of the company.

Some employers give little thought to this. They are the employers who habitually use an iron hand, ruling by decree, and who rely on the fact that, once the strike is over, they will succeed—through the governance structure or even by outside means and often by long legal disputes and proceedings—in imposing their will even though labour relations remain strained.

In this House, worst case scenarios were described in an effort to get parliamentarians to vote against the bill. But none of those related to actual events. They remain hypothetical situations.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, we studied this bill and heard from 13 or 15 unions and other organizations which support the bill. Three times as many people appeared before us to oppose it; they did so at the request of the Conservatives to try and justify maintaining the status quo.

We heard the same bunch of examples that do not hold water, like the one about banks no longer being able to operate. The fact of the matter is that less than 1% of bank employees are unionized, and there has never been a single dispute.

We also heard the one about railways. Even without anti-scab legislation, locomotive operators and railway employees, who are skilled workers, could not be replaced in the event of a work stoppage.

We saw it recently. There was a labour dispute that lasted two weeks. The employer could have replaced these employees with replacement workers. The problem was that, in fact, there were no specialized workers with similar skills to do the job. This resulted in a shorter conflict. But had replacement workers been available, and considering that the act still allows the use of such workers, the CN labour dispute would still not be settled, based on the examples that I mentioned earlier.

They are also giving us the example of telecommunications, including the 911 line, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is not a good example. During the debate, when they saw that the testimonies given by these companies and organizations were not going anywhere, they talked about the mines that could stop operating. We were given the example of a diamond mine in the far north. They gave us a spiel about how tragic it would be if we did not manage to get the diamonds out of there at the same pace. It would not be possible to use winter roads, because these diamonds can only be transported over ice bridges.

They never cared about the people living there. They never used these people as an example. Yet, when it comes to essential services, the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, particularly section 87.4, do provide such measures. The legislator included these measures to help those who could become more vulnerable following a dispute. The Canada Labour Code already provides that.

I find it unfortunate that they invoke the fact that it was not possible to insert a provision on essential services into Bill C-257 and say this prevents the provision of essential services. But such a clause already exists. It would be better for those members who are opposing the bill on the grounds that it does not include a provision on essential services to say openly that in fact they oppose the principle of anti-scab legislation. Their position in this debate would be clearer for everyone, and also more honest.

Like all my fellow Bloc members, I will support Bill C-257, and I invite other members—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-257. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau, who introduced this bill which the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has masterfully shepherded along. We would not be here today, debating Bill C-257, were it not for the work of the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

My remarks will be mainly directed to the public and the viewing public. I think that the minds of the political parties concerned, the Conservatives as well as the Liberals, are pretty much set. But it is the citizens who are watching us debate this Bill C-257 with respect to replacement workers who will have the last word. We may be going to the polls again shortly, and it is my understanding that this will be an opportunity for the public watching us at home to punish these two political parties for their lack of action on the issue of replacement workers. Let us start by looking at what the use of replacement workers is all about.

Workers are unionized. They have the right to strike, the same way that the employer has the right to lock them out. They may exercise this right upon the expiry of their collective agreement; but for the entire life of the collective agreement, the only right they have is to abide by the agreement and do as they are told by the employer. We must not forget that, when bound by a collective agreement, one has to abide by it from the day it is signed to the day it expires.

Only once the collective agreement has expired can workers stand up to their employer and tell him that, during the life of that agreement, there were things they liked and others not. They put all aspects into perspective. They are basically without rights while the collective agreement is being negotiated, especially since the Canada Labour Code is completely different from the labour code in Quebec. They are without rights in the context of a strike in particular. What happens then? Negotiations go on for a certain period of time. If they eventually fail, the workers end up on strike.

Today we are discussing the issue of replacement workers. In the Canada Labour Code, the employer has all the rights. Even if the other opposition parties think that the poor employers do not have all the rights, we firmly believe that these employers have these rights. The proof is that if at the end of negotiations an agreement is not reached, the workers vote either to return to work or to go on strike. In the case of the latter, these workers find themselves on the street and the employer has every right to hire other people to replace the strikers.

This is where things get difficult. Why do we want to take up this issue? Because it is wrong that workers have the right to strike, but that they are the only ones punished.

Why does the employer have all the rights? If I understand correctly, the two other parties agree with giving all the rights to employers. Maybe there is something we do not know. Maybe something was said that we did not hear and that made the Liberals change their minds mid-stream. I do not understand. I think that everyone here has the right to their own opinion and that they have rights. We want to protect the rights of workers.

I come back to the situation I was just talking about. These workers are out on the sidewalk without pay. When they are not working they are not being paid, unless the union has the money to pay them during strike weeks.

These people earn no salary during the entire period. This can lead to some friction at home, since the father is not working and stays home. The children wonder what is happening and why their father is at home rather than at work. A loss of earnings leads to family conflict. All of this because of a strike.

What of the employer in all this? In the factory, the employer hires management personnel and has the right to use them to replace the workers, like in any other factory—including factories in Quebec.

The thing is that people from anywhere who do any kind of work are being brought in to do the work instead of using the workers who are on the picket lines.

Imagine, for just a moment, that you are a factory worker and you are not happy with the working conditions of your work place. You are on the picket line and you see a bus load of people who are coming to replace you in your job, often at a salary that is lower than yours was before you left. Thus, you find yourself in a situation in which the employers hold all the cards.

Why should an employer agree to negotiate in good faith with workers when he can do without those workers because the factory is still in production?

The employer never has to deal with problems. What could happen? Workers could be out in the streets for months and months. There have even been cases where workers were out in the streets for years.

During that time, these people go without work and without money because they want rights under a collective agreement and they want to improve their lot. Is there anyone in this world who does not want to improve their lot and their working conditions? We all want to improve our working conditions.

I do not know anyone who would negotiate a pay cut or poorer working conditions with an employer unless that employer was up against a wall and could prove to workers, in black and white, that there were serious problems. Then the employer could propose cuts to pay or benefits. Usually it is during bargaining that workers would make their demands known.

Earlier, I listened to the Liberal member talk about measures taken and essential services. Since 1999, rulings have indicated that section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code is a provision to maintain essential services.

The June 30, 1999, ruling in Aéroports de Montréal vs. Public Service Alliance of Canada, CIRB File 20258-C, contains 15 references to section 87.4 of the code as pertaining to essential services.

The June 22, 2001, ruling in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited vs. several trade union organizations, CIRB File 21134-C, contains 60 references to section 87.4 of the code as pertaining to essential services.

The March 26, 2002, ruling in NAV CANADA vs. Canadian Air Traffic Control Association and several trade union organizations, CIRB File 21881-C, contains 30 references to section 87.4 of the code. This is nothing but an excuse the Liberals are using to justify supporting Bill C-257.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the NDP and to make it clear, as we have from day one, that we are 100% in support of Bill C-257, a bill that would ensure replacement workers are not allowed to be brought in during a strike situation.

After listening to the member for Mississauga South, I am quite appalled at the excuses being made by some members to slide out of supporting the bill.

I want to put it on the record that essential services have been in the Labour Code for the past 10 years. In fact, it was the former Liberal government that produced section 87.4 that spells out the provisions and the process for dealing with essential services during a strike.

For that member or any other member of the Liberal caucus to stand and say that somehow the bill is flawed and that it does not meet the tests of essential services is completely false. I want that to be very clear. Either they have not read the Labour Code or they do not understand that section 87.4 lays out the provision for the union and the employer to designate what essential services are before a strike begins. There is a provision for the board itself to do that if there has not been an agreement. There is even a provision for the minister to ask the Industrial Relations Board to make that designation.

If those members have not read the material, I hope they will today because many activists from the Canadian Labour Congress are on Parliament Hill today to provide that information. I hope they are not deliberately misleading the House by saying that the bill does not cover essential services. The provision was good enough for 10 years in the Labour Code, which the Liberals wrote, so why is it now suddenly a problem?

There is no question that the CIRB has ruled numerous times on essential services. In the code, it designates maintenance of activities but it is the same as essential services. If we read the rulings in the CIRB, we will see that it uses the words “maintenance of activities” and it uses the words “essential services”.

This is a process that is already in place and it is working very well. It has never been identified as a problem. I am astounded to hear members using this mythical issue as an excuse to slide out of supporting the bill.

This bill, which came from the Bloc, has been through the House 10 times. It is a bill that would produce a fair balance in labour relations.

The committee heard from over 100 witnesses. During 33 hours we heard from numerous employer organizations and employers. Probably about 80% of the witnesses were from employers. Only about 20% were from the labour movement. We did very thorough research on the bill.

At the end of the day, the bill is about establishing a very important principle, which is that when workers go on a legal strike they have a right to know and to expect that replacement workers will not be brought in or that people will not be able to cross the picket line, which are important rights for workers.

As we know from the history of what happened in British Columbia and in Quebec, this law has worked for years and years and actually works very well. It produces labour relations stability. Unfortunately, we have now come to a position on the bill where all kinds of fearmongering and misinformation is being put forward.

I would like to put forward another reason that the bill in no way impacts essential services. Even if the bill were approved, and I hope that it will pass today at third reading, it would not remove the rights of the federal government during any labour dispute, under federal jurisdiction, to bring in back to work legislation. The bill would not impede the right of the federal government to do that.

We recently saw the situation with the CN Rail strike and the legislation that was proposed to deal with it. This bill would not in any way remove the capacity for or the right of the federal government to do that. I personally do not support back to work legislation, nor does the NDP, but nevertheless the right of the government to do so would still exist.

This bill has had a lot of attention. It has had enormous debate in committee. It is very unfortunate that now as we near the end of the process there are members of the House and big employers who are trying to provide misinformation about the bill, because the essence of this bill is that it will establish a very important right for workers and produce a level playing field, as we have seen in B.C. and Quebec.

I am from British Columbia. We have a right-wing Liberal government in my province. British Columbia's legislation has worked very well. It was brought in by the previous NDP government but was left in place by the Liberal government because it understood that the legislation was producing labour stability. I think that is really what we want to see here in terms of labour relations in this country.

I urge members of the House to focus on the merits of the bill and not get bogged down in some of what I think is the political positioning that has taken place. I believe that the information provided by the Canadian Labour Congress will answer all the questions that members may have about the bill. This information shows that it is a very sound piece of legislation that provides the balance and the fairness we want to see.

I will end my remarks by saying that I think we are going to hear a number of times today about this question of essential services. We will hear members say they cannot support the bill because it does not cover essential services. I want to emphasize the fact that it is abundantly clear that the issue of essential services and the process for designating essential services are already in the Canada Labour Code.

In fact, one of the approved amendments to this legislation says that this bill would be subject to section 87.4 of the Labour Code. This is the section which outlines the steps that can be taken to designate essential services to protect the public's health and welfare and the public interest. That is very clear, so if people begin by providing further misinformation and organizing a campaign around this, it will clearly be politically motivated.

I urge members to look at the merits of the bill and to look at the principles of what is taking place in terms of protecting workers' rights and dealing with what sometimes in the past has been violence on the picket line. When replacement workers are brought in, they become the focus of the strike, and this actually prolongs the strike rather than having people focusing on the issues and ensuring that a fair collective bargaining and negotiating process is in place, which is what we want to see. That is why there should be a ban on replacement workers. That is why 100% of the NDP members will be in their places on Wednesday to vote in favour of the bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to complete my commentary on Bill C-257, an important private member's bill dealing with the federal Labour Code.

The last time a major consideration of the federal Labour Code was undertaken there were extensive consultations over a number of years. Private members' bills have a limited amount of time to address things. I will move quickly to what I believe is the essential element with regard to the debate on this bill, which has to do with the concept of essential services.

I think all parties, whether they be labour, management, members of Parliament or the Canadian public, agree that essential services must be continued in some fashion in the event of a labour disruption or dispute.

During the committee stage hearings on Bill C-257, amendments were tabled to introduce the elements of essential services. The committee, under the direct testimony of expert witnesses, found that the current provisions under the federal Labour Code did not include a definition of services but included only the concepts of safety and health. That means that railways, telecommunications, post offices, et cetera, are not included under the rubric of safety and health.

In an attempt to add the essential services element to the bill, the Liberal members introduced a variety of amendments to put that in to ensure the federal Labour Code would cover the so-called essential services.

The Speaker, after taking advice from the House officials, officers and legal counsel, determined that those amendments were out of order because they tried to introduce a new element into the federal Labour Code that was not previously there. This is extremely important because it changes the whole focus and the whole consideration of Bill C-257. Based on the ruling of the Chair, Parliament now has to understand that essential services are not covered by Bill C-257.

I would like to indicate that many members of Parliament were pleased to receive input from the labour sector and they agree that it is very important that we protect the delicate balance between labour and management and respect the collective bargaining process.

I will read from one of the letters here that states that “Section 87(4) of the Canada Labour Code was specifically written with essential services in mind”. That is a very interesting way to describe it, “in mind” but not “in fact”. Essential services are not in the federal Labour Code. Unfortunately, that is the case and it is something we need to reconsider.

It is my recommendation that the inclusion of essential services in the federal Labour Code is an important element. We certainly do not want to disrupt the flow of cheques to seniors for their benefits, nor the transport of important materials to our vital manufacturing sector. That would damage jobs and hurt the labour force and I do not think anyone wants to do that.

I believe that Bill C-257 does not meet the need but we do need to address the elements of the federal Labour Code.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-257, commonly known as the replacement worker bill.

The last time the federal labour code was dealt with, between 1995 and 1999, a comprehensive and exhaustive review took place with all stakeholders. It resulted in some important changes and developments to provide a balance between management and labour and, of course, mutual respect for the collective bargaining process, which is very important to many industries and businesses within Canada.

Members of Parliament have also been approached, lobbied, if you will, by many stakeholder groups on all sides. This bill has resurrected many of the arguments that were raised back in 1995. It is becoming very clear that the instrument of a private member's bill, which receives two hours of debate at second reading, and a very short period for review at committee, and only two hours for report stage and third reading, provides a relatively modest amount of time for a bill that is seeking to make very substantive changes to the federal labour code.

I wanted to raise this point because this is a very serious issue. Members are taking it very seriously. There are legitimate disagreements among members within this place, as was seen by the vote at the second reading stage of the bill.

One of the key elements of the debate has to do with the concept of essential services. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website in describing what is an essential service refers to the Public Service Labour Relations Act and its definition of an essential service and states as follows:

Subsection 4(1) of the PSLRA defines an "essential service" as "a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public". Services should be identified as essential where there are reasonable grounds for accepting the probability, or even the possibility, that human life or public safety would suffer if a work stoppage interrupted the duties of these employees. It should be noted that positions where occupants are to be available during their off-duty hours to report to work without delay to perform the essential services are also included.

It lists some examples, which include border safety and security, correctional services, food inspection, health care, accident safety, investigations, income and social security, marine safety, national security, law enforcement, and search and rescue.

I think from the standpoint of the Treasury Board and from the Public Service Labour Relations Act the concept of essential services is well defined for the purposes of the Government of Canada.

The federal labour code does not include a definition of what constitutes essential services. In fact, it refers to public health and safety. Amendments that were proposed at committee were trying to incorporate into Bill C-257 the concept of essential services and to have them linked into the federal labour code.

The Speaker, looking at the process and the rules and the procedures that we must follow, was of the view that a couple of the amendments which would establish the concept of essential services within Bill C-257 were beyond the scope of the bill and were out of order. We find ourselves ostensibly with the original bill unamended. A minor amendment was permitted, but the bill is unamended for the most part.

That covers the government side, but there also was the business side, and members also received an intervention from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Its communication states:

It is the Canadian Chamber's opinion that any change to the Canada Labour Code, especially an amendment that alters the relationship between employers and employees, deserves extensive study in order to fully understand the impacts on Canadian society and the economy. As stated in section 2.4 of Bill C-257, the bill would prevent uninterrupted provision of services that affect seniors, families, small businesses and the Canadian economy--services such as 911; health and emergency services; transportation services (air, rail, marine, and road) and news and weather warnings in the event of a storm or tragedy.

The chamber has launched its campaign to engage members of Parliament on this.

As we can see, the business sector is talking about essential services in the context of the implications to Canadians at large. I know that in our history of postal strikes there has been some argument that the postal service represents an essential service. That is not public health and safety, but--

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to rise at this point to seek a ruling on whether two amendments to Bill C-257 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are in order.

Bill C-257 was reported from committee on February 21 with amendments. I submit that three of these amendments are out of order, namely, the committee amendments to the bill's proposed new subsections 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 of section 94 of the code.

These amendments are out of order because they are beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257 for two reasons. These amendments now seek to indirectly amend the application of section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, a section requiring the maintenance of services where interruption would cause immediate danger to health and safety, which is a provision that is not originally included as part of Bill C-257. In so doing, they would also dramatically expand and alter the effect of section 87.4 introducing the much broader concept of essential services.

Not only is this beyond the original content of Bill C-257, it is arguably contrary to its original purpose. These amendments do not relate to the purpose of section 94 of the Canada Labour Code, the original purpose of that section being to proscribe unfair practices.

In terms of subsection 2.1, the amendment to subsection 2.1 of section 94 of the code is out of order because it is beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257.

This amendment attempts to make the bill “subject to section 87.4” of the Canada Labour Code, which is a section, as I said, dealing narrowly with imminent danger to life and health in the event of a strike. Because section 87.4 is not referred to elsewhere in this bill, this is clearly a provision that attempts to reach back to this section. I therefore submit that the amendment is out of order.

The amendment to subsection 2.3 of section 94 of the code is out of order because it is beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257. That was the ruling of the chair of the committee on February 15 when this amendment was first put forward by the member for Davenport. However, this decision was overruled by the committee, which then adopted the amendment. Let me take a moment to explain why this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill.

Section 94 of the Canada Labour Code prohibits employers and unions from using unfair labour practices. This section would be changed under Bill C-257 by prohibiting replacement workers during a strike or lockout, and adding powers for the minister to investigate compliance.

The committee chair ruled that the amendment to subsection 2.3 was out of order because it adds the new concept of “essential” services to section 94 of the Canada Labour Code, which is not relevant to that section.

In order to understand the context of the committee's decision, it is important to note that on February 14 the member for Davenport proposed an amendment to section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code which sought to ensure the continuation of essential services in a strike given the ban on replacement workers proposed by Bill C-257. The chair ruled that amendment out of order because section 87.4 was not opened up in Bill C-257 as originally introduced.

Section 87.4 of the code addresses the obligations of employers, unions and employees to maintain certain activities during a strike or lockout. It does not use the word “essential” to describe these activities. Rather, it allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to designate which activities, services and operations must be maintained in order to prevent an “immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

After the committee chair ruled on February 14 that amending section 87.4 was out of order, the member for Davenport moved an amendment on February 15 to add a new subsection 2.3 in section 94 of the Canada Labour Code to set out essential services which must be continued during a strike. However, section 94 of the code does not deal with the continuation of services in any way but simply lists unfair labour practices for employers and unions.

Adding the new concept of essential services in section 94 of the Canada Labour Code could affect the operation of section 87.4 by the back door by altering the way the Canada Industrial Relations Board would interpret section 87.4.

As this amendment also attempts to broaden the role of the board, this amendment both reaches back and broadens the scope of Bill C-257. It is therefore out of order on both counts. What is more, this new concept of essential services is not a defined term either in the previous statute or in the amendment. No definition is offered.

The amendment to subsection 2.4 of section 94 of the code is also beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257. The committee chair also ruled on February 15 that the amendment to subsection 2.4 was out of order. However, again the committee overturned the chair's ruling and adopted this provision. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code would add new powers to the Canada Industrial Relations Board regarding essential services during a strike or lockout. However, as noted earlier, section 94 deals with unfair labour practices, not the powers of the board for essential services. Therefore, the amendment to the proposed new subsection 2.4 significantly alters the nature of section 94.

I would also note that because section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code provides authority for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to maintain services during a strike or lockout, the new subsection 2.4 would affect section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code in two ways. First, it would provide the board with new powers to amend any agreement and it would supercede any decisions the board may take under this section. Second, because it introduces the new concept of essential services, it would undoubtedly change the interpretation of the board's existing powers for carrying out its activities under section 87.4.

I believe the committee chair's ruling was correct. Subsection 2.4 adds a new purpose to section 94 of the code and it is not relevant to section 94. It is not in the jurisdiction of the committee or the House to alter, by amendment, a private member's bill so an entirely new purpose is introduced. Therefore, the amendment is out of order and should be removed from Bill C-257.

I note that Marleau and Montpetit specify, at page 654, that an amendment must relate to the original matter of the bill. It states:

—it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or the clause under consideration. For a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Marleau and Montpetit also state that amendments must be within the principle and scope of the bill.

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

To sum it up, just as it is out of order to amend section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code because this section is not afforded by the original Bill C-257, it is also out of order to amend the same section through the amendment's indirect effect.

Subsections 2.3 and 2.4 are out of order because they do not relate to the original subject matter of Bill C-257 as introduced, and because they introduce new issues which were not part of Bill C-257 as originally introduced. The amended subsections 2.3 and 2.4 are therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-257 and should be removed from the bill.

Persons with Disabilities

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I am counting on you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you very much. That will allow me to propose an amendment.

Recently, in 2004, the Canadian government wanted to have even greater control over managing the file concerning persons with a disability, in relation to the provincial jurisdiction and Quebec's jurisdiction.

At that time the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to the plans for reforming the system, an amendment to ensure that the Canadian government would respect provincial jurisdictions. The government of the day rejected the motion in order to exercise even greater control over this area of provincial jurisdiction.

In my proposal, I maintain that we, as Quebeckers, find it quite appalling that every time the Canadian government interferes in aspects of those jurisdictions that should belong to the provinces and to Quebec, it fails in its duty to correctly assume this responsibility.

As I stand and speak here today, an election has just been called in Quebec. Every time there is an election, this issue of jurisdictions enters into the debate: our ability to be able to exercise our powers, to manage our own holdings and, of course, the money we send here to Ottawa, and the assurance that it will be used as it should be.

Employment insurance is one example. To date, the government has diverted more than $50 billion from employment insurance. At least a quarter of this amount belongs to Quebec.

Today, in ridings throughout Quebec, including my own, activists and other members of the public are meeting to discuss how to reopen this political debate during the election campaign, not just to focus attention on this issue, but to see how Quebeckers can eventually regain control over their own destiny. I want to commend the people who have already begun the debate.

In my opinion, it is important to point out to the hon. members of this House that we in the Bloc Québécois have always been open about our intentions, our goals and our vision of the future. Today, when we look at the issue of persons with disabilities, the federal government's responsibility for these persons, the way it has handled this issue and the government's negligent attitude toward monitoring support for persons with disabilities, we are sorely disappointed.

This study will also have to look at the issue of areas of jurisdiction.

The member for Kitchener Centre has called on us to examine all aspects of the treatment of the disabled. She would entrust this task to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

This is a matter that we must not take lightly and we need to take our time to study it correctly. At this time, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is studying several bills. We have just completed a review, after recommendations, of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). We have before us Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. This government bill deals with the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. We also have two bills pertaining to employment insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that I have two minutes left. All these bills will require a great deal of time to study.

If we want to do our job with regard to the motion before us, the following amendment should be made. I move:

That motion M-243 be amended by replacing “no later than May 2007” with “no later than November 30, 2007”.

I believe I require the consent of the member who tabled the motion, thus the member for Kitchener Centre, to amend the motion. She could second it, if she consents.

Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities regarding Bill C-257.

Opposition Motion--National Anti-poverty Strategy

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for the analysis and conclusions she has brought to this debate. I remember how passionately she debated Bill C-257, which will soon come up for third reading in the House of Commons. It, too, is intended to provide better tools to those members of our society who are the least organized.

My question for my colleague is this: no single measure can combat poverty. As we all know, over the years, the Canadian government, especially the previous Liberal government, has destroyed the social safety net that protected many of the most vulnerable members of our society.

I would like my colleague to comment on an approach that gives the Canadian government additional tools and responsibilities, even though it failed to fulfill its responsibilities in the past. Would it not make more sense to transfer the money being held here in Ottawa to the provinces, which are responsible for this matter?

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and thank him for raising the debate on poverty here in the House today. It has been quite some time since we have discussed this issue as seriously as this here in the House. The premises set out by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie are good, and he has accurately identified the causes, effects and consequences of poverty in Canada and Quebec.

I would also like to remind the House that, in 1990, a motion was unanimously adopted right here in this House, promising to eliminate child poverty within 10 years. That was in 1990 and the promise was supposed to be fulfilled by the year 2000. Yet, now, in 2007, the situation is even more appalling than it was before.

Once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for raising this debate on poverty and the working conditions I mentioned. As I said, the NDP premises are good. I believe they identified the causes correctly and gave a good analysis. The member for Sault Ste. Marie gave an excellent analysis. He is right: those least well off and most vulnerable are left to fend for themselves, especially by this Conservative government, this right-wing government whose main ideology is based on every man for himself and the law of the jungle.

We saw this earlier from the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, whose analyses were based not on compassion or empathy, but rather on a cold, economic analysis. Furthermore, I must add, this is not just a misstep by the government. It believes in this ideology. It feels compassion for the oil companies in Alberta. Indeed, we can see and feel that.

This government says it is getting things done. Of course it is. It reduced the GST by 1%, but a person needs to have money in order to buy things. This may be true for low income workers and students who want to succeed, as the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont was saying. It is true we have to give them a chance. Nonetheless, there are some people who did not get a chance at all and we have to help them. There are people who are unable to work—those who are disabled, those who are illiterate, seniors, young families, the homeless—who need this helping hand.

It is not good enough to tell these people that the oil companies in Alberta will get millions of dollars, but they can have the scraps. We must truly help other categories of people who are living below the poverty line. I am talking about the current Conservative government, but the Liberal government was no better. It made drastic cuts, to employment insurance in particular. It totally changed the program and turned it into a tax in disguise instead of making it a program to help the unemployed.

The Conservative government is hawkish. It is investing billions of dollars in war equipment and military expenses and cutting subsidies to the least fortunate. I will give some examples. This government bases its ideology on repressing people instead of helping them or providing funding for prevention. It is the sheriff of Nottingham instead of Robin Hood.

This government does not have the same values as Quebeckers. In Quebec we have developed a strategy to combat poverty, to provide a social safety net to help the less fortunate. We have compassion, empathy and sympathy. We understand the distress and anxiety of people living below the poverty line. We are trying to help them in every way possible to improve their situation, with a stronger economy, but we are also trying to help people who cannot make it on their own.

The Bloc staunchly defends the interests of the unemployed, older workers, women, minority groups and all Quebeckers, while the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has abolished or limited the programs designed specifically for low income earners.

The Bloc Québécois acknowledges the importance of a national anti-poverty strategy. When we use the word “national”, we are referring to the nation of Quebec. Thus, we recognize the strategy of the Quebec nation. The responsibility of the federal government is to provide adequate and temporary financial support—through transfers to Quebec—for the work of the governments, the provinces and Quebec in the fight against poverty.

The Bloc Québécois feels that, far from providing support, a pan-Canadian strategy established by the federal government duplicates what is being done in Quebec and in certain provinces.

The Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the minimum wage should not be the only aspect considered. There are other avenues used by the Quebec government—$7 child care, benefits for low-income families, the lowest possible tuition fees—that are achieving real results in the fight against poverty.

As for the minimum wage, the Bloc Québécois would prefer that the federal government take some of the measures that for too long it has refused to implement, such as improving the EI program, financing the older worker support program, using the huge CMHC surpluses to finance the construction of affordable housing, and restoring funding for women's and literacy groups.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois is asking the federal government to immediately take measures to assist aboriginal peoples who are truly living in poverty. Poverty is found in society but it is also found at work. Sometimes our work is not enough to lift us out of poverty.

That is why the Bloc Québécois takes workers' needs into account. For example, we have introduced—and will reintroduce—a bill on preventive withdrawal in order to avoid having two categories of female workers in Quebec. Some are entitled to only five months at 55% of their gross salary to withdraw from an unhealthy work environment and experience the joys of pregnancy and a new baby. Other female workers in Quebec benefit from a real preventive withdrawal program that allows women working in an environment that is not good for their pregnancy to leave the work environment with 90% of their net salary. That is the sort of program that should also be put in place for workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.

This government should have introduced another program. It is an NDP initiative that was reintroduced by the Liberal government and should have been brought in by the Conservative government last December. I am talking about Bill C-55, which sought to establish a wage earner protection program in case of bankruptcy. It is time this Conservative government reintroduced this bill in the House so that we can quickly adopt this protection for wage earners when the company where they work goes bankrupt.

Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), would also help workers. Workers are currently on strike at CN. The company is spending more time challenging the legality of the strike, hiring American scabs, creating dissent among the new workers by hiring retirees and using all sorts of stalling tactics than actually sitting down with the unions to negotiate proper, balanced conditions. Meanwhile, the scabs are getting involved in a dispute that has nothing to do with them. This is unacceptable, and it is time this House adopted the anti-scab bill.

As for the actual minimum wage, section 178 of the Canada Labour Code reads as follows: “—not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed—”. Currently, the province, Quebec, determines the minimum wage. The Bloc Québécois feels that this is as it should be. We see no reason to change this, no reason to give the federal government another opportunity to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Quebec sets the minimum wage, and does a good job of it too. If there is any disagreement, we in Quebec discuss it with various unions, the FTQ, the CSN, social groups and the government. Together, we decide what the minimum wage should be. That way, we avoid creating two classes of workers—those who earn $8 an hour under the Quebec Labour Code and those who earn more or less than that under the Canada Labour Code.

That way, there is no problem. Minimum wage is the same for everyone.

In addition to creating two classes of workers, unfortunately, not many people would benefit from this legislation. We know that 267,000 workers in Canada are covered under the Canada Labour Code and only 1% of them—18,000 people—would be affected by the NDP's measure. Yes, it would help some people, but I think this work needs to be done on a provincial level.

As for poverty in society, let us talk about employment insurance. If this government wants to do something, it must fix the employment insurance program, stop using it as a hidden tax and return the $40 billion to the workers.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made 28 recommendations. All the government has to do is follow them. That way, we will be able to say that the government is really doing something to fight poverty.

I would also like to talk about the program for older worker adjustment, POWA. More and more, older workers are feeling POWA-less, if you will excuse the awful pun. The situation is getting worse and worse for older workers. We know that globalization is causing more and more workers to lose their jobs because more and more manufacturers are closing their doors.

Older workers, who sometimes have difficulty finding new jobs, need a bridge between when their company goes bankrupt, about when they are 55 or older, and when they begin receiving their Canada pension or Quebec pension.

I would also like to talk about child care. What the government did with respect to child care is an absolute scandal. At the federal level, there is a child care expense deduction. Canadians who pay the full cost benefit greatly. Conversely, since 200,000 children in Quebec attend day care centres at only one fifth of the cost—$7 a day—parents in Quebec can only receive one fifth of the federal tax credit.

Given its refusal to adjust its taxation for the $7-a-day child care program in Quebec, the federal government has thereby taken nearly $1.5 billion from parents since 1998. This amount, taken away from parents in Quebec, is compensated by the Government of Quebec, since it assumes 80% of the cost of affordable child care. When it comes to child care, Quebec pays and Ottawa pockets the money. Year after year, the federal government steals $250 million from parents in Quebec, or, on average, $1,316 per child. That is more than the $1,200, which of course is taxable, that the government proposed to give them in its last budget. This works out to a net loss of $116 per child per family. The Conservative government says it wants to give parents the freedom to choose.

The first thing to be done is to stop penalizing parents in Quebec for having chosen to set up an affordable child care system. The federal government's fiscal policies must stop penalizing Quebec for having created a child care program that is unique in North America. Furthermore, the OECD calls it the best program in Canada and one of the best in the world.

For years the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the federal government to transfer to the Government of Quebec the money it is saving on the backs of Quebec families. This transfer would allow the Government of Quebec to invest in its family policy. When the federal government includes child care funding as part of resolving the fiscal imbalance, as the Minister of Industry promised to do in February 2006, it should also take into account the punitive effects of its tax system on Quebec parents. Resolving the fiscal imbalance should be comprehensive; but to be fair, it should not be uniform.

Let us now look at another aspect: the guaranteed income supplement for older persons. This is another Liberal government scandal and the Conservative government is heading down the same path.

In 2001, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities identified, remarked and underscored that 68,000 people in Quebec were not receiving their guaranteed income supplement. The least fortunate in society receive a minimum and minimal pension. The federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—through its management of this program, is preventing tens of thousands of people from receiving the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled. It is a real scandal.

The Bloc Québécois—thanks to our former member for Mauricie—launched a major campaign throughout Quebec to try to reach the least fortunate, the isolated, the sick, people who are unable to read or who do not speak either of the two official languages.

These are the most vulnerable individuals in our society. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, today they receive the guaranteed income supplement of $6,600.

This Conservative government should pay them what they are owed, because it used these delaying tactics to avoid paying them earlier.

If this Conservative government wants to do something for the most disadvantaged, it should pay the retroactivity to seniors who need this guaranteed income supplement, because the government owes it to them.

As you are rising, Mr. Speaker, I assume I have little time left. However, I have yet to speak of social housing.

Textile and Clothing Industry

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about job losses in any manufacturing sector in our country. We have begun the long trek back to get the economy rolling again, with tax cuts and job creation programs about which the Liberals forgot.

All the Liberals want to talk about is Kyoto. They do not even want to mention Bill C-257, which would exonerate the programs that we are trying to put in place.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I move that Bill C-257, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 3 with the following:

offence and liable, on summary conviction, for each day or part of a day that the offence continues, to a fine not exceeding

(a) in the case of a corporation, a trade union or an association, fifty thousand dollars; or

(b) in the case of any other person, one thousand dollars.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

My suggestion would be that we limit debate on this, we vote on it and we move on with the bill.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are dealing right now with clause-by-clause for the bill. You can't just bring some other motion dealing with some other matter. Right now, we're still dealing with the clause-by-clause. We've just finished clause 2. We now have to go to clause 3. Then we have to figure out whether this motion, which is totally outside of what we're dealing with with the clause-by-clause, is in order or not. But at the moment, we're only dealing with the bill and clause-by-clause. So we should continue as we've been proceeding thus far.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chair, I really think that to hang this bill on just that word “essential” and say that these three people have decided what essential is.... Have they not heard the witnesses and what they think is essential for this country?

In fact today in question period, Mr. Savage asked a question about competition and where we are in the whole international spectrum. The message, which was loud and clear, was that we will have some serious situations with our international trade if any of the services that are counting on such things as our rail transportation.... And I go back to my province, which specifically depends on rail. We don't like the rail any more than the union that works for them. However, the farmers really do have a difficult time if those two have decided to lock horns, and there is no way they can get their product to the coast. So they are the ones who are expected to settle this strike somehow on the backs of the farmers or the backs of the potash mines, or mining, or whoever depends on these particular....

It may not be deemed essential by these three people, because it certainly does not talk about just public health, but it talks about the international stage and about where we are in international trade. And this is always missing out of this whole bill. It is easy for someone who is only looking at the small picture not to realize that there are many people relying on us to make sure that federally regulated sectors are able to continue their service, make sure there is not a disruption. But if there is the right to strike, and labour has the right to strike, and I think that collective bargaining does protect labour....

I'm thinking we are going to have to broaden “essential” to “critical”--critical for this country, critical for our trades. I think this is missing. And many of us are small farmers, small business people who rely on these essential services.

We can't compare it to the Quebec bill, which continues to be brought up, in which they say that public health and public safety is in that bill. It is not in Bill C-257, and I think we have to make sure it's understood.

These people who have come before us are afraid of this bill, and there are reasons that other provinces didn't adopt it. I would like to hear what the other jurisdictions think of this bill and why they never did consider this legislation. It's because it's legislation that I think just encourages bad relations between labour and the sectors.

I think we have to rethink what.... I really don't know how anyone here can decide what essential services are without going out into the ridings and finding out how many of these people in your ridings--small businesses--rely on these services that would never be deemed essential.

I am just so surprised that we can hear three people decide, back and forth, what essential should mean, when in fact I can tell you what essential means. Essential means livelihoods. The people rely on getting their products to markets. We're an export nation. The provinces export just about everything. In central Canada we export all the time. It's essential to us.

When they want to put in that farmers are an essential service, then I think this bill might be starting to come around to where we are. So moving right along....

Thank you.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, if we keep a break, I don't see any problem in that, but I simply want to say that that answers the question Mr. Brown asked: what happens if we haven't finished at midnight? That's why I'm going to wait until he is with us, with your permission, of course.

We aren't the first committee that has set itself guide posts for a bill. This has happened for very important bills, again recently, from the moment one of the parties wishes, for its own reasons, to stretch out the debate.

The committees of Parliament operate on the same principle as the House, that is by majority order. However, when you study the history of the formation of the committees, you discover that the purpose of that was precisely that, at some point, a majority order would decide, determine the progress of business.

That could have happened to any party. Sometimes, for our own reasons, we may adopt a certain type of behaviour, but it is always the majority that determines the order. In the matter before us, Bill C-257, the debate has been underway for a number of months and even years.

The Conservative Party, like a number of witnesses, has reminded us that this is the tenth time we've introduced this bill. Virtually everyone has repeated their positions. We ourselves have debated them here. We are at the clause-by-clause consideration stage, and we have identified those clauses very specifically. We would be deluding ourselves if we said that our positions would change if we continued the debate for another 20 hours.

If there are minor distinctions to be drawn, no matter how minor, we can easily make them in two minutes, and that requires us to rely on each other's intelligence. It also requires us to summarize our remarks very clearly.

That is why this order, which we want to see adopted here by the committee, is consistent with the interests of the House of Commons and the parties involved.

We have obligations as parliamentarians. One of those obligations is to report on our proceedings. At the rate we're going, we won't be able to report on our proceedings and we'll even undermine those proceedings for the consideration of other bills.

I would remind you, since I've said it, that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has called on me personally to ask whether I was prepared to collaborate, cooperate, so that we could expedite our consideration of Bill C-36. We will do so; I told him, yes. However, if we are put in a situation such as the one we've been in since yesterday, we can guarantee nothing, and I don't understand the way the Conservatives want to work when they act in this manner. However, I won't criticize them for that because they have their prerogatives, but I nevertheless want the majority of this committee to determine how it intends to conduct its business so that it is constructive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, we'll now continue with clause-by-clause consideration.

Before we get started, I see we have someone standing, so I'll recognize you. Monsieur Lessard, fire away.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I want to be sure I understand what's going on here.

If I understand the comments made by Mr. Silva and Ms. Davies, the motion presented to the committee, the first amendment to clause 1, which is, “Subsection 87.4(1) of the Canada Labour Code is replaced by the following:”, including this text, is not what they intended.

But you're saying that this particular clause is out of order because it's amending a section that Mr. Nadeau's bill, Bill C-257, does not reference. So it cannot amend this particular section.

Originally they were trying to overturn your decision that this was not amendable, and now they're saying, oh sorry, there's a mistake, this is not what was intended. So we're waiting to see whether they will in fact uphold their challenge of your decision.

And then you want to revisit this topic immediately after—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Once again, Madame Lavallée, we thank you very much for your observations.

Once again, this is not an order paper that is laid out exactly. We are a committee that will operate as it so sees. This is a recommendation of where we're at, but other motions can be introduced into the mix.

Let us look at Bill C-257. I would like you to look at Liberal amendment 1, which is essentially a new clause that would replace the existing clause 1 the way it stands right now.

(On clause 1)

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go back to some comments that were made directly to me about me claiming that union bosses didn't have a say.

What I was trying to say--and I feel it was misconstrued, so I really want to get it on record--is that I think the impact of this bill is very deep. It has a deep impact on a lot of people. When I spoke about having employees, I wanted to go back to one of the witnesses, Maurice Zoe, the aboriginal site coordinator for the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories.

When he was speaking on behalf of his native community, he said,

The union did not appear to understand how the aboriginal community functioned. Labour unions are not part of our communities or our leadership. In this case, they imposed a significant burden on our people by forcing a strike, but at least we had the opportunity to make up our own minds and return to work.

This right to work for these native people with no other employment opportunities in the north will not exist if Bill C-257 is passed. Mr. Chair, those were the employees I was speaking about who aren't necessarily part of the unions that are involved in this legislation.

What I wanted to talk about were the farmers and individuals who feel disenfranchised by this legislation. They represent disenfranchised employees and employers, in this case. As committee members, we've received letters from the Grain Growers of Canada, in the prairie centre, who've not been able to testify.

And this bill will affect individual farmers who are my constituents. They have no way of being able to have their case heard. They don't have a union, but they are at the mercy of a federally regulated sector. Coming from the prairies, we rely on unions and sometimes replacement workers to get our farm products to the port, and with this bill there is no recourse for individuals like farmers.

As I said earlier yesterday, this is critical, and I think this is a message that we have to get out to all Canadians from coast to coast. These are critical services. It's not necessarily about workers; it's about the public good.

They expect federally regulated people to have good relationships with.... I believe there should be good relationships with labour and their bosses, but I do think that we are very innocent in this, and all the sectors.... I have a letter I would like to read that tells, already, about the effects that some of this legislation.... It's indeed going to create some problems.

I wanted the member to realize that I wasn't talking about bosses. I was talking about all the other people who are affected, who do have jobs that aren't particularly protected by this legislation. But certainly this legislation will affect them.

We know there are 12,000 companies that fall under federal jurisdiction, representing about 1% of Canadian businesses, and the majority of them are small, and they're very small. Four out of five of them employ fewer than 20 workers. In all, there are almost 900,000 people who work for federally regulated companies. That may not seem like a lot for companies, but they are important ones.

I think this is what's missing here. We're not talking about the impact and the public good. Besides public safety, we have to talk about what's in the best interests of the public good. We talk lots about the importance of productivity and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), we'll commence as we look at clause-by-clause consideration.

I know that when we broke yesterday we had a motion before the committee. The question is, do we want to continue with that motion or do we want to go clause-by-clause? It's at the will of the committee to decide what we want to do.

Mr. Lake.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, I get the impression I'm in the National Improvisation League here. The situation is completely crazy. A bill has been referred to us for consideration. We have heard a host of witnesses, and as we are preparing to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, an amendment is submitted to us, a surprise motion that we're trying to negotiate like this.

I tell you that trying to negotiate with our colleagues is insulting and contemptuous. Mr. Chair, we can't treat matters as important as this lightly. We all due respect for my colleagues here present, I must say that this is intolerable.

We could very well have introduced a motion today and said that the evidence heard in the first part indicates to us that a better balance will be struck with this bill, and I would have found that insulting for our colleagues. The reverse is also true. You can't say today that Bill C-257 will result in an imbalance in view of the evidence we've heard, because that evidence has to be viewed in perspective, in light of the initial evidence.

We know that there was an imbalance in the evidence. That's been admitted here. By dint of circumstance, we accepted a motion introduced by the Conservatives to add witnesses to the list.

We know that we could also have issued a list to restore the balance. We could have called for the unions, since we heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, then all the list of chambers of commerce of the provinces. We could have done the same with the Canada Labour Congress. We heard it and we could have called for all its affiliate organizations. There would have been a lot of people!

I contend that we should take Bill C-257 in its present form, as it was referred to us by the House, examine it clause by clause and responsibly conduct the evaluation and analysis with which we are required to proceed. That means that we will also examine the matter of essential services.

Are we going to shirk a responsibility that is ours by assigning it to someone else? That would be irresponsible. Ultimately, we could draw certain conclusions, but once the clause-by-clause consideration is done. At the end, we might find ourselves with a clause that is really the subject of special concerns. Everyone could then say that we can't find our way and that we should assign the study to someone else, but we have to know what it is about. We can't assign the whole thing to someone else.

I'm going to oppose this motion. I'll also say that I'm going to oppose any practice of this kind, which consists in introducing a makeshift motion, taking everyone by surprise, and trying to negotiate it with an opposition party. Mr. Chair, this is intolerable.

[Marc Toupin, Procedural Clerk]

I think, Mr. Chair, the process is that if members wish to amend Bill C-257 in such a way, they would have an amendment drafted by the House legislative counsel. That amendment could then be looked at, and ultimately the chair of the committee would have to rule as to whether or not it is in order.

The general rule is that it is not proper for a parliamentary committee to go into sections of the Canada Labour Code that are not being amended by this particular bill, by Bill C-257. There has been some reference by witnesses that any amendments to essential services would deal with section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, and that particular section is not being amended by Bill C-257.

[Munir Sheikh]

My expert tells me that she's not quite clear on what would be or would not be allowed. We really haven't come to those kinds of conclusions on the Bill C-257 provisions.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

There are about seven people.

Taking a look at the bill itself, Bill C-257, and going on to proposed paragraph 94(2.2)(a), I've had a number people come forward with a concern in regard to where it states “a person employed as a manager, superintendent or foreman or as a representative of the employer in employer-employee relations”, in that they are the only individuals who would be allowed to work during a particular lockout or strike. Would this actually prevent individuals who are non-unionized employees, who are managers, to go in and provide replacement services?

[Munir Sheikh]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, as I said, I'll deal with issues of fact. There are issues of policy in that question that I would not want to deal with.

Let me explain that in the Canada Labour Code the reference to essential services is essential services in a very narrow sense. The services defined in the code only relate to health and safety.

The reason there's such a narrow focus on essential services is that the essential services provisions of the code work hand in hand with the replacement workers provision. The two go together. Because businesses are allowed to use replacement workers, the code did not have to be very prescriptive on what essential services are, and it has suggested mechanisms in the code on how to deal with the essential services issue. The code quite explicitly states that management and unions should sit together and define what essential services are in their particular areas.

I'll give you an example. On the CN strike that is happening right now, effective February 10, the two parties jointly determined that the commuter rail service in Toronto and Montreal will not be shut down. The service is still running, and it's only the freight service that has been hit by the strike.

If the two parties, Mr. Chair, cannot agree on which services should continue, they would apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the board would come to a decision on what it would consider to be essential. It is what both parties would be expected to follow.

To summarize my answer, since the two provisions in the code work hand in hand, the provisions for essential services are very limited. If, for the sake of argument, one of the provisions of the code were to change, then there would of course be a huge imbalance between the two.

For example, if Bill C-257 is made into law, it would mean the essential services provision in the Canada Labour Code would not be sufficient. If it is not dealt with, then I would speculate that the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find it has to deal with a workload that is significantly more than is realistic at the present time. The board may not be able to handle that.

Again, I think the two things need to be looked at together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006 Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), the committee will now resume its work on the study.

I would like to take this time to welcome the Department of Human Resources and Social Development. We have the Deputy Minister of Labour; the Director General, Labour Program, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; and some legislative help as well as senior counsel. Usually you'd have seven minutes each, but because the reason for the meeting today is to have you here, you can take the time you need.

Mr. Sheikh.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you very much.

Just before I thank all of our witnesses for being here today, I do want to remind everyone that if there are any witnesses you would like to see when we talk about Bill C-36, Bill C-269, or Bill C-278, could you get those to the clerk by Tuesday at noon. Christine will be sending out a notice to that effect, but it is Thursday now and we'll be heading to Friday and Monday. And remember there are the amendments for Bill C-57 as well, but you do have until Wednesday at noon to get them in.

Once again, I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our guests for accepting our invitation.

I simply want to make a comment on Mr. Nicholls' remarks on workers' ability to judge the merits of the decision.

When it's said that they made the decision to strike because they didn't understand what the vote implied, I think that's quite contemptuous, particularly since, in that situation, we're talking about Aboriginal people. I've worked with Aboriginal people and they are people concerned about being able to communicate among themselves and to understand situations clearly. I've even seen them interrupt meetings that I've attended in order to hold group meetings among themselves so that they could be sure they had understood everything. So these are people who are concerned about clearly understanding things before making a decision.

I use that example to say that you can't rely on an argument such as yours to establish the validity of Bill C-257.

I very much like the viewpoint of Mr. Turnbull, who urges us to examine what's really essential. I don't think everything can be essential, and I think you'll agree with me on that. Otherwise, if Messrs. Finn and Turnbull, for example, told us that everything must be essential, all that would then remain for you to do would be to seek the abolition of the right to strike. But I don't think that's what you are arguing for today. So some things are not essential.

Based on experience observed in Quebec, there are key areas, including health, where there is a right to strike, but also essential services. However, those services are based on a relationship of understanding, first of all, as to what must be essential or not, and when the parties do not agree, a third party decides the matter.

I want to get a clear understanding because we'll have to take a position on this question. You two have argued to this effect, and you may intervene, as well as others. What should we favour between the two? Is this an approach whereby we agree on essential services with the union, or the right to replacement workers?

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

In your brief, you write, and you repeated it out loud:

Many of our people were not looking for or expecting a strike, which they never voted for.

And yet there are 300 and some unionized workers at the Ekati mine, nearly 400 even, and there have been two strike votes.

You know how it works. Miners are brought in by plane and stay there for a period of two weeks. Then they go home for two weeks. There were two votes, one at the end of February 2006 — pardon me, but I don't know the exact dates — and one in early March, I believe, around March 10. The vote was 74 percent in favour of the strike. Two-thirds of the workers voted for this strike.

If there hadn't been a strike vote, Mr. Nicholls obviously would have been the first to mount the barricades or at least to complain. He would have filed a proper complaint with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. So I'm quite surprised to hear your allegation on that subject.

I should also say that the end of your presentation is more anti-union than anti-Bill C-257. I understand that you have needs and that your community has needs and beliefs, but it's a delicate matter to say that they go against union activities.

Having said that, I believe that is a personal opinion of yours and that it belongs to you.

In a labour dispute, you have to consider balance. Everyone is right to say so, except that we don't have the same definition of balance. Balance is the union party and the union party working together and negotiating together over a long period of time, then coming to the conclusion that there must be a strike or a lockout. The employer deprives itself of a portion of its production because, under Bill C-257, and based on 30 years' experience in Quebec, there are indeed managers who work. Workers are also deprived of their work and income. So that's really balance.

When replacement workers come in, it's as though a third player were entering a match that's already underway and who starts playing for the employer.

[David Turnbull, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Courier and Logistics Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting us to appear here today.

My name is David Turnbull. I'm the president of the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association. I'm accompanied by Bill Henderson, senior vice-president of operations with Purolator Courier. On behalf of the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association, I would like to provide the committee with our significant concerns regarding Bill C-257.

Canada's courier industry provides delivery of time-sensitive packages, freight, and documents to small, medium, and large businesses, government institutions, public health facilities, and individuals. The courier industry is a vital part of the Canadian economy, with estimated revenues of approximately $5.5 billion, and it is responsible for employing some 46,800 people.

Today, Canada's manufacturing and retail industries depend on just-in-time delivery for essential replacement parts and inventory. Interruptions to these just-in-time deliveries can cause slowdowns or even closure of production lines, impacting the Canadian economy. The automotive industry, among others, transfers component parts between manufacturing facilities for assembly. Many of the smaller components cross and sometimes re-cross the Canadian border using courier company services.

Distribution of vital medical supplies and diagnostic material are transported by our couriers every day. For example, Canadian Blood Services collects whole blood from more than 14,200 blood donor clinics and ships blood, plasma, and other blood products to nearly 750 hospitals across Canada using couriers to transport. In times of emergency, critical supplies are delivered through the courier industry's national and international facilities.

Let me speak to the implications of Bill C-257 for the courier industry. Bill C-257 would seriously jeopardize the courier industry's ability to deliver essential packages and freight in the event of a strike or lockout. It proposes a fundamental change in the balance between the interests of organized labour and business and tilts heavily towards labour. The proposed bill would not allow businesses to continue operations, while at the same time, it would allow striking workers to seek employment outside the workplace. How can you consider that to be balanced?

No credible evidence exists to suggest that any problems exist in the present Canada Labour Code with respect to replacement workers. Numerous presentations to this committee have quoted statistics produced by Human Resources and Social Development Canada that refute the premise of Bill C-257. The number of work stoppages per 10,000 employees in the province of Quebec is significantly higher than in comparable federally regulated business operations, despite the fact that Quebec has a provincial restriction on replacement workers and the federal code has no such restriction.

The current federal legislation provides a fine balance between the interests of business and labour. It was arrived at after extensive consultation and input. No such extensive consultation led to the creation of Bill C-257.

The Canadian Courier and Logistics Association believes that enactment into law of Bill C-257 would reduce the competitiveness of Canadian businesses. It would make Canada less attractive for foreign direct investment, and SMEs would consider moving to the U.S. or to overseas locations following any national labour disruption.

It is important to note that operations of both unionized and non-unionized companies would be affected by strikes in other sectors. The domino effect from the closure of such facilities as airports due to safety certificates being revoked could ripple through the whole of the Canadian economy. As well as these economic considerations, a significant risk to Canadians' health would be posed by the disruption of courier services for vital medical deliveries.

In consideration of the above, the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association urges the committee to reject this legislation.

In summary, Bill C-257 would impact the Canadian public and industry as follows: It would change the existing balance in part I of the Canada Labour Code without a full consultation. It would lead to longer, more frequent work stoppages. It would hurt workers financially, drawn into disputes unrelated to the employer they work for. It would prevent the delivery of essential parts and inventory in the event of strike or lockout; and, therefore, would undermine the viability of many small and medium-sized businesses, putting jobs at risk. It would endanger investment and, indeed, the Canadian economy at large. It would prevent couriers from maintaining the delivery of essential services to Canadians. It would adversely impact public health and safety and would inevitably force Parliament to pass back-to-work legislation in strike situations.

So in summary, the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association urge you not to proceed with this legislation.

I don't know if the clerk has handed out my handout. I've detailed in great detail some of the medical supplies that are transported by our couriers, and some of the auto parts, to give you a sense of this, and Mr. Henderson would be pleased to speak to some of the medical issues that are delivered. I urge you to look through this package and consider the broad implications for the whole of Canada. Not just a single industry, but every single Canadian can be impacted negatively if this bill goes through.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Sean Finn]

Sure. I can do it in French, if you want me to.

I apologize to the interpreter.

Anyone who has been to China and met the Chinese exporters or shipping companies can tell you that one of the first questions asked to any visiting Canadian delegation pitching for an increase in Asia's North American trade through Canada is, what about your labour situation? This may refer to the ports, the truckers, or the railways, but to be sure, every work stoppage that leads to delays in moving our customers' goods to market hurts our competitive position and hurts Canada's competitive position.

The government sees great promise in the Pacific gateway initiative. There is talk in Atlantic Canada of an Atlantic gateway initiative. We at CN see great promise as well, but we do not underestimate how quickly our competitive advantages can be lost because of an uncertain labour environment. We at CN are extremely excited by the potential of the new container port that will open this fall in Prince Rupert.

Traditionally, labour legislation has been drafted carefully after lengthy consultation with both labour and management. Existing federal legislation reflects years of discussion and consideration. In the end, it represents a compromise approach, under which neither side gets everything it wants. To arbitrarily change one aspect of the Canada Labour Code destroys that careful balance and has the potential to significantly damage labour relations in the companies covered by the act.

There are many changes we'd like to see made to the current law, and I am sure the unions also have a long list. It is indeed time to consider or reconsider the current legislation, and do it in the right way. Appoint a panel of experts to look at the law in its entirety and bring forward a set of recommendations reflecting the concerns of all parties based on facts and experience.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, CN believes that Bill C-257 is seriously flawed and cannot be sufficiently improved through amendment, and urges the members of the committee to vote against the bill in its entirety.

Thank you very much.

[Sean Finn, Senior Vice-President, Public Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Canadian National]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sean Finn. I'm the senior vice-president and chief legal officer at CN.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure for us to be here today and to have the opportunity to give you our comments on Bill C-257.

We at CN take Bill C-257 very seriously and view it with great concern. CN has approximately 15,000 unionized employees across Canada. These employees belong to seven unions in 21 certified bargaining units and are covered by 30 collective agreements.

There are a number reasons why certain sectors are federally regulated. One is that we are companies with broad enough operations and important economic impacts that we significantly impact the Canadian economy.

CN, as you know, is a freight railway. We serve eight provinces as well as the mid-United States. In Canada, CN serves the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Montreal, and Halifax. In the case of Halifax and Prince Rupert, we are the only railway servicing those ports. The majority of VIA Rail Canada's trains travel on CN tracks, as well as much of the commuter traffic of GO Transit in Toronto and the Agence métropolitaine de transport in Montreal.

Since 1971 CN and its unions have been involved in four strikes. Strikes in 1974, 1986, and 1995 all required back-to-work legislation by the federal government. This was done because Parliament deemed it necessary to ensure that the Canadian economy did not suffer serious damage, and also to ensure that CN's customers did not have to shut down plants and lay off workers, with substantial impact to their businesses.

In 2004 CN faced a month-long strike by the CAW. CN continued to operate during the work stoppage, exercising our rights under the existing labour legislation, using managers—who had to be qualified and skilled—as well as retirees to continue to operate the railway and service our customers. The strike was generally peaceful, and ultimately a settlement was reached through the collective bargaining process and ratified by a large majority without government intervention. I'm very pleased to note that just last week the same CAW employees, without a work stoppage, ratified a new four-year agreement.

If this legislation were passed, with its strict limit on the tasks management personnel can perform and taking away our ability to bring back retired managers to help run the railway, it would not be possible for us to maintain operations through a strike.

Under current labour legislation, bargaining representation is system-wide. With the changes suggested in this bill, labour would have the power to disrupt company operations nationwide. Companies would not have the resources to deploy to maintain the critical services necessary to maintain nationwide services essential to the general welfare of Canadian citizens. We fear this would mean a return to a system where any nationwide railway work stoppage would inevitably require government intervention. This is not the way to build trust between management and the union or to improve labour relations.

I'd like to speak a few minutes about the collateral damage that would take place in the event of even a short railway strike.

First, the commuter rail service in Toronto and Montreal would quickly grind to a halt, leading to traffic jams and great inconvenience for millions of people. In some cases, depending on which union is striking, VIA Rail service could largely stop.

I must remind you that while it is possible to apply to have workers designated as essential, the grounds are very narrow, and the chance of success, unless the unions agree, is minimal. Economic consequences are not considered.

Canadian railways are a significant driver of the economy. The Canadian economy is heavily dependent on trade. The majority of our bulk products and many of our manufactured goods are moved to export position by rail, as referred to by Canpotex. Grain, forest products, coal, sulphur, fertilizer, metals and minerals, and many other bulk commodities rely almost exclusively on rail to get to destinations in the United States or to export position at Canadian ports. The many companies relying on just-in-time delivery parts would see their production lines slow and eventually stop. Companies would incur increased storage costs and in some cases would have serious problems finding places to store their production. Canadian ports would face serious backlogs on incoming containers, and ships waiting for out-going products would sit in port running up large demurrage bills. Canadian farmers and other primary producers would suffer, as would Canada's international reputation.

These would not be short-term or one-time issues, as the reliability of Canadian suppliers to meet their commitments would be drawn into question. In the past, strikes at west coast ports have caused traffic to move to U.S. ports, and some of that traffic never comes back.

[Howard Mains, Canadian Public Policy Advisor, Association of Equipment Manufacturers]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, John, for your kind comments.

I think it's important to note that the dealers and the manufacturers all share a common goal, and that is, to get the right equipment into the hands of the farmers and make sure that equipment is working when they're trying to get their crops off.

Let me first say a few words about the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. AEM is the trade association representing the agricultural, forestry, construction, and mining equipment sectors. In addition to Canadian equipment manufacturers, such as MacDon out in Winnipeg, there are about 700 other members, including those that manufacture the tractors, tillage, electronic, and harvest equipment Canadian farmers depend upon to plant and take in their crops.

This afternoon I wish to speak about five areas of interest to this committee. Just briefly, the first is the sales history. I had handed out a chart that shows the sales history over the past 20 years of farm equipment in Canada, or rather tractors and combines in Canada. As you can see, it's not a rapidly growing market, except in those sectors that seem to serve the large acreage sector. You can also almost match those sales numbers with various market influences, such as the BSE crisis in 2003-04, and you can take a look at the tractor and combine sales in those years.

All of us in this room will be familiar with the tremendous productivity improvements Canadian farmers have made over the past 40 years. Work done at the George Morris Centre at the University of Guelph illustrates that farmers have been just as innovative and efficient in their productivity gains as other major industrial sectors in Ontario. Our farmers have much to be proud of in that regard.

These productivity gains result from many different types of technological advancements. For example, if I were still milking cows out in Lanark County 45 minutes from here, I might be thinking about buying a robot to do the milking, like some of my neighbours have who are still milking cows out in the barn.

Another great leap forward in productivity is the application of GPS technology in farming. Precision agriculture systems that are now in place--the assisted power steering systems, monitors for planting, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and harvest yields--all allow farmers to drive down fuel and crop input costs, while at the same time reducing environmental impact and maximizing revenue from an acre of land. So precision agriculture systems can and do address the economic and environmental issues confronted by farmers today.

Engine manufacturers have also made great strides in increasing fuel efficiencies. That's one of reasons why we're asking that the CCA rates be increased. According to the Univeristy of Nebraska tractor test laboratory, the average fuel rating measure in 1981--and I apologize for this measure, but this is the way they do it, and those of us who farm know a little bit about this--was 12.2 horsepower hour per gallon. That's a tough one, isn't it? Regarding the latest technology, last year Deere had a tractor go through the Nebraska tractor test that came out at 18.7 horsepower hour per gallon, so that is a 50% improvement, while at the same time meeting the new EPA tier three emission regulations.

As a result of these ongoing technological improvements, not only in tractors, but across the full line of agriculture equipment, Canadian farmers are replacing their equipment much faster. In the past, innovative farmers might have upgraded their tractors every five to seven years. It all depends, but we'll use round numbers here. Now, and the dealers will know this, those leading edge, innovative farmers are trading in their equipment much sooner, maybe three to five years, in order to reduce the operating costs through fuel efficiencies and increase operator efficiencies as much as possible.

Let me ask you to picture in your mind two things. The first is a horse harness and the second is a bright new 250 horsepower GPS-equipped tractor, maybe down on Doug's lot down in Winchester.

I think you'd agree there's a stark contrast between those “tractors”. Well, under the tax act there isn't; they are the same. They both are classed in class 10 of the capital cost allowance. Both are allowed the same 30% depreciation rate. That's just one example of how outdated our tax code is in this country, and I think it's fair to say that we need to have a good, hard look at that and to say that horse harnesses and new tractors are not the same thing.

Last October, dealers and manufacturers jointly wrote to the Minister of Finance asking the government to modernize CCA rates, and we urge this committee to recommend these changes to the government. By doing so, the agriculture committee would be supporting both the industry committee, which tabled its report on Tuesday and made a recommendation in this regard, and the finance committee. We would be able to go into the budget cycle possibly with three committees making the same recommendation.

Allow me to turn to a matter of significant concern to AEM members and indeed to dealers, a matter that's before Parliament in committee, and that's Bill C-257. I'm sure some of you may have heard a little bit about it.

Dealers and manufacturers require a robust, dependable telecommunications network to ensure rapid delivery of replacement parts for repairs to agricultural equipment. In particular, I would point out that in some provinces, agricultural equipment manufacturers are under a statutory obligation to deliver parts within a set period of time. In Saskatchewan, it's 72 hours. A lengthy strike by telephone company employees without replacement workers to maintain mission-critical telecommunication networks that everybody at this witness end of the table depends on would put into jeopardy our combined ability to get those parts into the hands of the farmers.

In the 20 years leading up to the changes in part I of the labour code in 1999, Parliament had to intervene 17 times to end labour disputes. Since then, not once has Parliament intervened. I trust, therefore, that you would draw these concerns to your caucus colleagues.

AEM in both Canada and the United States supports the ongoing efforts of government to establish a renewable energy strategy. In the U.S., AEM is working with 200 other organizations on the 25X25 initiative, which has a goal of obtaining 25% of U.S. energy supplies from the nation's working lands by 2025.

In Canada, the government has established a mandate for biofuels. However, without tax parity with the U.S., much of the value-added processing will locate south of the border. This means the value of the jobs, equipment, and supplies to build and service the industry will accrue to the U.S. and not to Canada. We simply would become exporters of raw product and purchasers of finished goods.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a new industry created and developed in Canada, and all producers are asking for is a level playing field. There will be clear spinoff benefits to rural communities and their agriculture-based economies.

In summary, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, manufacturers and dealers have a shared goal, and that is providing Canadian farmers with equipment that does the job of getting the crop planted and harvested. AEM supports the concerns of the dealers brought to this table, and in particular urges the committee to pass a motion calling on the government to increase CCA rates.

Thank you for allowing me to address the committee this afternoon.

[Graham Nicholls]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My remarks today are further to a letter of December 11 that we sent to the standing committee on behalf of BHP Billiton Diamonds.

My name is Graham Nicholls. I'm a vice-president and director of BHP Billiton Diamonds. Joining me in making the presentation today is Maurice Zoe, aboriginal site coordinator at the Ekati Diamond Mine. Nancy Deshaw, our in-house legal counsel, is available to assist in answering any specific questions.

BHP Billiton is the world's largest diversified resources company. Its main asset in Canada is the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories. It's a multi-billion dollar investment and falls under federal labour law. Ekati uses the services of between 1,500 and 2,000 people, including employees and contractors. Of the total workforce, in excess of 30% are aboriginal.

We have important socio-economic obligations to the communities in the area, and we operate under stringent licences to ensure protection of the environment.

Diamond mining provides over 40% of the GDP of the Northwest Territories, as well as a significant flow of taxes and royalties to the federal government.

Our mine is located in the tundra about 300 kilometres northeast of Yellowknife. It depends on air transport and a winter ice road for access, fuel and supplies. The mine is a very complex operation, located in a sensitive environment. It can't be shut down as a result of a labour dispute without risk and negative impacts to the local economy, to the social fabric of aboriginal communities and to the environment.

There was a strike at Ekati last year. We kept operating, using our contractors and non-union employees and the 42% of bargaining unit employees who freely chose to return to work. We did not use replacement workers; no one was brought to the mine who was not already providing services there before the strike started. A first collective agreement was reached, with 97% of the workers returning to their jobs after the strike. There was minimal disruption to other stakeholders, and our safety and environmental commitments and programs were not compromised.

The strike would have lasted much longer if legislation like Bill C-257 had been in place, because the workers at Ekati had the right to return to their jobs and demonstrate that the union did not have their support for the strike. The proposed legislation would make it illegal for these workers, many of them aboriginal, to exercise this right and express their position.

The strike was imposed by the union without an independent strike vote, which is a benefit accorded to unions under the existing code when a tentative agreement is voted on and rejected. However, the code also provides a check against unions prolonging strikes that are not supported by their members, by allowing workers the option of returning to work. This is an example of the many checks that help retain balance in the current system.

The proposed bill is narrow and one-sided, and it would drive a wedge through the careful balance that is found in the existing legislation. We think the code has worked well; let's not fix what isn't broken. Mechanisms are already in place to ensure that the use of replacement workers does not undermine the role of the union. If passed, the bill would surely result in further legislation and labour disputes in an attempt to refine it further, causing even more uncertainty and instability for all stakeholders.

The proposed legislation is even more troubling because there's no evidence that it would reduce the frequency or the length of work stoppages. Rather, based on the key observations of the October 2006 HRSDC report, which you're familiar with, it is likely that the opposite would occur.

As a global investor, we must emphasize that the draft legislation would have an adverse impact on Canada's competitiveness. A decision to substantially expand our mine would be affected, for instance, if we felt that the labour situation would be difficult to manage. If our bargaining power is diminished and unions are able to exploit our dependence on the winter road or air support, or exploit our inability to shut down operations without incurring undue risk and damage to ourselves and our stakeholders and the environment, then our appetite for investment will also be diminished.

Legislation that benefits only unions and imposes risks on business continuity and an employer's ability to comply with his contractual commitments to regulatory bodies and customers alike will inevitably have negative consequences on growth and investment in Canada.

I'd now like to hand the presentation over to Maurice Zoe, to speak about the perspectives of aboriginal people, given our experience at Ekati.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, the committee will now resume its study of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for taking the time to be here today. This is our last day of hearings on Bill C-257. We will be bringing in department officials on February 13 and going clause-by-clause on February 14 and 15.

Again, thank you to everyone for being here. Today I'm going to start with Mr. Nicholls; then move, via video conference, to our friends from Canpotex Limited; and then I'll go all the way around. I would ask each group for seven minutes. Then we'll have one seven-minute round of questions, followed by a five-minute round. The order will be Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Conservative. We'll try to get in two or three rounds of questions.

I'd like to start with Mr. Nicholls.

You're from Billiton Diamonds, I believe?

[Steve Bedard, Chair, Canadian Employers Council]

Thank you.

The Canadian Employers Council is the voice of Canadian business on international labour issues and at the International Labour Organization, the ILO. The CEC has been actively representing the interests of Canadian business on international labour issues for over 80 years, since 1919, and the membership of the CEC represents a broad cross-section of Canadian employers, many of which are federally regulated.

The CEC speaks on behalf of Canadian business at the International Labour Organization, which is the United Nations agency that promulgates international labour standards; at the International Organization of Employers, the IOE, which is the international body representing employers' interests before the ILO; and within the Summit of Americas process.

Our equivalent at the ILO is the CLC, the Canadian Labour Congress. The CEC and its members are opposed to Bill C-257 and believe that it should be rejected in its entirety. On substantive issues arising from Bill C-257, the CEC endorses the submissions of FETCO, Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications. We understand that Don Brazier, FETCO's executive director, provided a written brief and appeared before the standing committee on December 5, 2006.

The CEC's submissions before the standing committee are limited to relevant international labour principles that shouldn't form any review of Bill C-257.

I refer the standing committee to the CEC's written brief, which was provided in both French and English. In our oral comments today, we'd like to focus on two areas. The first is that Bill C-257 represents an unwarranted politicization of federal labour law reform. This issue was touched on briefly by Michael McDermott, the former senior deputy minister for the labour program, during his appearance before the standing committee on December 7.

It is the CEC's position that the politicization of labour law reform runs counter to the tripartite tradition that flows from international labour principles and has long been embraced at the federal level.

Secondly, it is the CEC's position that the principles of international labour law do not support a prohibition on the use of temporary replacement workers.

The ILO has never made an adverse finding against Canada respecting the use of temporary replacement workers, and it has not adopted any instrument that expressly prohibits the use of temporary replacement workers.

Regarding concerns respecting the politicization of labour law reform, unlike labour law reform in many of the provinces, federal labour law reform has avoided politicization. Instead, tripartite reform processes have been embraced within the federal system to ensure the active and meaningful contributions of employers, trade unions, and governments. Tripartism is focused on the process leading to substantive labour law reform. Tripartism promotes stability and balance in a labour relations system.

A commitment to tripartism is at the core of the ILO and is reflected in three important international labour standards, which are discussed in detail in the CEC's written brief. These standards promote effective consultations and cooperation among public authorities, employers, and workers organizations. These international principles help to illuminate why the politicized process underlying Bill C-257 represents a disturbing departure from the tripartite tradition that has existed at the federal level.

A strong legacy of commitment to tripartism in labour law reform at the federal level is reflected in the 1968 Woods task force process and report, as well as in the 1995 Sims task force report entitled “Seeking a Balance”, which has already been discussed at great length before the standing committee.

The CEC's primary concern regarding the process leading to the introduction of Bill C-257 is that it constitutes a politically motivated attempt to reform the code for the purpose of shifting the balance of power between employers and trade unions.

Regarding the lack of expert tripartite process leading to the drafting of Bill C-257, to the contrary, an expert tripartite process was conducted by the Sims task force report, which heard exhaustive argument in favour of and against the ban on temporary replacement workers. In the end, this expert tripartite process concluded that a ban should be rejected.

The CEC believes that Bill C-257 will in itself create instability in the federal labour law sector. If the bill succeeds, it will open the door for further changes coming not from a tripartite expert process, but as a result of a political process, similar to what was experienced in Ontario in the 1990s—an experience that I believe neither employers nor unions would want to see again.

In terms of international labour principles respecting temporary replacement workers, there are absolutely no guidelines, policies, standards, or laws at the international level that ban the use of temporary replacement workers. There are, however, ILO principles supporting the right to engage in free collective bargaining and also the right to freedom of association.

Although the Canadian Labour Congress has brought a number of complaints to the ILO regarding labour relations issues in Canada and in the provinces, it has never complained with respect to the issue of replacement workers. In fact, the majority of the complaints are largely brought in respect of back-to-work legislation and provincial laws that limit collective bargaining and strikes.

Prior to the implementation of the Sims report a number of complaints were taken to the ILO regarding back-to-work legislation in the federal sector. Since Sims, there has not been one instance of back-to-work legislation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, concerning Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on replacement workers, the committee will now resume its study of the bill.

I would just like to take this time to welcome all of our witnesses here today. I've got you in order here and I'll let you know when you're going to go. There will be seven minutes each. I will give you a sign when you have one minute left if you're not watching your own clocks, and then we'll start with a couple of rounds of questioning, starting with the opposition and moving through over to the government. It will be seven minutes for the first round and then the second round will be five minutes.

I believe that via teleconference we've got the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines. I want to welcome you. I will let you know when you're going to speak.

If we could start with our first witness, we're going to ask the Canadian Employers Council to proceed. I believe we have Steve Bedard.

Steve, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank our guests for coming today to tell us what they think about this bill.

I would like to start by comparing your opposition to Bill C-257 with the actual facts of the matter. Would it not be more advisable for you to advocate that Bill C-257 be passed for the following reasons? If we are trying to be objective, we have to realize that between 20 and 25 per cent of federally-regulated workers are unionized. We know that only 3 per cent of the collective agreements negotiated result in a labour dispute. Ultimately, we are talking about quite small numbers of people who could benefit from the legislation. You said as well—and all the parties here acknowledge this—that generally speaking, labour relations between employers and unions in federally-regulated areas are quite harmonious.

Your argument to justify your opposition to Bill C-257 is based mainly on the movement of goods and services, particularly air and rail transportation. We have seen that the other arguments did not stand up, particularly those having to do with banks and the 911 emergency service, either because these companies are not unionized, or because they come under provincial jurisdiction. So let us look just at the transportation sector.

We know that in both rail and air transportation, pilots, mechanics and train conductors must take seven to twelve years of training in order to do the job properly. Consequently, it is very difficult to replace them in the case of a labour dispute.

Is the company not shooting itself in the foot when it says that it will advocate the use of replacement workers rather than directly negotiating essential services with the unions?

Let us look at the statement made by CN, for example. If it rejects negotiations on essential services, how will it be able to negotiate with its locomotive drivers in the case of a strike? They cannot be replaced very easily.

I would just like to hear what you have to say about this. There's a weakness in this argument somewhere.

My question is both to the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and to the people associated with rail transportation. On December 7, 2006, the Railway Association of Canada gave the example of your railway, Mr. Bell, and today you are telling us that your workers are not unionized, and your fear stems from the fact that a transshipment occurred in Sept-Îles, for example, where the workers are not unionized. The same argument applies to the Chambers of Commerce with respect to the two other rail companies.

I would like to hear your comments on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Bell. You're right on time.

Before we start our line of questioning, I'm going to do a couple of housekeeping matters, and then we will start with the Liberals.

I want to introduce to everyone Graeme Truelove, who started with us last week. He is a clerk in training, rather like an apprentice. I don't think Christine has any notions of firing him or anything, but he's going to be apprenticing as a clerk over the next little while with Christine. We want to welcome Graeme Truelove here.

The second thing is that we will have bells at 5:30 for a vote. I think all members are aware of that, but I wanted to mention that as well.

The last thing I want to mention is that there have been a couple of requests.

Mr. Silva has requested a comparison of Bill C-257 as it relates to the Quebec and the B.C. labour code—whatever that may be.

As well, Mr. Martin requested a study of disruption of essential services in Quebec and B.C. The researcher, Kevin, indicates to me that this has been found and is in translation right now and will be distributed to the respective offices on Friday, hopefully.

We have it right now, and the goal is to have it translated and out to your offices—hopefully by Friday.

Those are all the announcements I have. Let's get right into the questioning. We start with the Liberals. Mr. Silva is splitting his time with Mr. Savage.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Dr. Richard Bell]

—that are accessible by rail service only. They would go by plane, but most cannot afford it. To suddenly deprive these people of their rights and take away what they have already come to rely on would not be in the best interests of all of Canada. Bill C-257 will seriously impact our freedom to move and to provide the northern communities with essential rail service.

Thank you.

[Dr. Richard Bell, General Manager and Chief Operating Officer, Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today and for providing me with this opportunity to comment on Bill C- 257. I consider, for various reasons, that this proposed piece of legislation will only derail and hinder operations of rail service that are considered essential by those who benefit from it, such as the railway I represent.

First, let me introduce myself and describe the company I represent. I'm the general manager and chief operating officer of Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc., the first aboriginal-owned and -operated railway in North America, and perhaps the world. The shareholders of this railway are the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, the band council of Matimekush—Lac John Innu, and Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam. Each owns one third of the shares of the company.

When the QNS&L decided to stop providing passenger service, the Government of Canada did not see any other alternative to ensure the 800 Naskapi, 700 Innu, and 250 non-natives living in Schefferville remained connected with the rest of Quebec than to set up this railway. Most of Tshiuetin Rail's financial needs are covered by the Government of Canada, which acknowledges that this service is essential to their survival.

Tshiuetin acquired 135 miles of rail line from the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway, or QNS&L. The rail line is located between Schefferville, Quebec, and Emeril Junction, a midpoint some 225 miles north of Sept-Îles, Quebec, and some 80 kilometres from Labrador City, Newfoundland. QNS&L still owns and operates the line between Emeril Junction and Sept-Îles.

Our passenger train departs from Sept-Îles on Mondays and Thursdays, returning from Schefferville on Tuesdays and Fridays. We own the locomotives and the cars used for the service, which include baggage cars, passenger coaches, and even a dining car. But moreover, it is manned and operated by our own crews, which at the present time are 100% Innu and Naskapi. However, while Tshiuetin is on QNS&L track, which runs between Sept-Îles and Emeril, our locomotive engineer is replaced by a QNS&L locomotive operator. Once at Emeril, our crew takes over the rest of the way to Schefferville.

The acquisition of this line by the Innu and Naskapi people has provided them with an opportunity to show the rest of the province of Quebec and Canada that they are a proud people, and that, if given the chance, they can stand on their own feet and contribute their fair share to the advancement of the north.

QNS&L, as ourselves, is a federally regulated railway. We have no unionized employees, but they do. Some 50 locomotive engineers are UTU members. I cannot and will not speculate on what their union would do if there was a strike at QNS&L. There is no guarantee that the passenger service between Sept-Îles and Emeril would be maintained either by unionized employees or by QNS&L management.

With the QNS&L decision to get out of passenger train operation, and since their core business is iron ore—from Labrador City—it only stands to reason where their priority would be placed if they had scarce resources to maintain their operation. Without talking too much about this technical point, it seems to me that the definition of managers in Bill C-257 might seriously reduce the number of persons who can be used during a strike to replace regular workers. In addition, the English version of proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the bill seems to limit what can be done in terms of operation.

Bill C-257 does not contain any provisions dealing with essential services—and trust me, essential service is exactly what this train is for the population it serves. We are the first aboriginal railway, not only because of our ownership but also because of our customers; 75% of them are first nations people.

Maybe we should stop for a minute and try to define what an essential service is. To me and to the people I represent, eating is essential. Most of the food comes to the Schefferville area by train, and so do the clothes they wear. Being able to move around by car and Ski-Doo is essential, so they need gasoline. Fuel for planes, helicopters, and heavy machinery is also essential and also moves by rail.

The railway is the only ground link between Schefferville and the rest of Quebec. There are no roads connecting this region with the rest of the province. The region is, thus, highly dependent on rail transportation. Moving people, food, fuel, and everyday essentials for that matter can only be done by rail or by plane. But plane is very expensive. A one-way rail trip ticket from Sept-Îles to Schefferville is $62.82. The airfare is $690, some 10 times more.

Now, 1,750 people may not be a lot of people when they're not hungry, but wait until the train doesn't come in with the food they need.

The town of Sept-Îles serves as the main supply point for communities in the Schefferville region. More than 73,000 tonnes of products of all types—general merchandise, gasoline and fuel, automobiles, and so on—are transported annually from Sept-Îles to Schefferville. If the train were to stop for only one week, it would mean that 1,400 tonnes of goods and products wouldn't make it to Schefferville. It would also mean a loss of revenue of about $480,000 for the Sept-Îles suppliers.

Currently, more than 16,000 passengers ride the train each year. This year 807 people took the train to go to Sept-Iles to access medical services not available in their community. Without the train, these people would have had to take the airplane, which is much more expensive. In addition, there are 45 camps located along the track and used by the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam and Matimekush-Lac John communities for fishing, hunting, and trapping trips. They need the train service that travels between these camps and their home.

If the rail service were to be interrupted as a result of a strike, Schefferville region would no longer be supplied with provisions and products of all types, outfitters along the track would no longer be supplied with provisions and would suffer economically as hunters, and fishermen would no longer have access to the outfitters' camps along the way. Members of the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam and Matimekush-Lac John community would no longer have access to their hunting, fishing, and trapping grounds, which is ancestral territory. For a limited number of families, hunting and fishing provide food for part of the year.

I did not want to speculate earlier on what unionized employees would do, so I would not speculate on the reaction of the aboriginal people. But let me guess: they wouldn't be very happy.

If you cannot amend this bill, and I'm told you can't, to include essential service, such as a mixed passenger and freight train service that I provide to the communities in northern Quebec, then don't waste your time with this legislation that will create more problems than there are to be corrected.

The first nations people have ancestral hunting and fishing grounds—

[Bill Gardner, Member, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Dave.

Mr. Chairperson and honourable members, I submit, with respect, that Bill C-257 is a classic example of bad labour legislation, and I would propose eight reasons for it not to be passed.

First, I suggest that any piece of legislation that is vehemently opposed by one side or the other is likely ill-advised, because the foundation upon which labour relations is built in our system depends upon consent, agreement, and compromise. My labour friends well know that Canadian workers don't react particularly well when something is rammed down their throats; there is no reason to suggest that anything would be different with respect to Canadian employers.

Second, Bill C-257 represents a dramatic change in the balance of bargaining power, and such a change should not be contemplated without a correspondingly serious need. I don't see such a need existing today across Canada.

Third, labour legislation that bans the use of replacement workers inherently affects different employers differently and is thus discriminatory. If you are a large multi-jurisdictional multi-plant employer, you can have one or more of your operations go down without a correspondingly serious effect. On the other hand, if you are a single-operation independent locally owned business, shutdown of your operation can very quickly be fatal. These types of businesses are the so-called small business operations that government and other organizations generally say are to be encouraged, and that studies show to be the greatest job creators in our economy today, yet this legislation would impact them in correspondingly detrimental way.

Fourth, Bill C-257--and you've heard this from some of the other presenters--has been drafted and, I would suggest, rushed through Parliament without the sort of extensive consultation that should occur well before even the initial drafting phase. None of that has happened in this case.

Fifth--again, you've heard this before--in the 1990s, under the previous Liberal administration, there was a process of extensive consultation regarding the labour code and this issue in particular, which was addressed and found its way into amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Of course, this was without going specifically anywhere nearly as far as Bill C-257 proposes to go.

Sixth, nothing since then has happened would justify considering that the circumstances have dramatically changed.

Seventh, the labour climate in fact appears to be fairly positive throughout Canada. I refer to the able presentation from the gentleman from the United Transportation Union, who suggested that only 3% of collective bargaining situations result in a strike. I can't verify that precise number, but it certainly corresponds with my impression that generally speaking the course of labour relations federally has been relatively smooth in the last few years.

Finally, the fact that the legislation exists in Quebec and British Columbia is no more reason to adopt it federally than the fact that it doesn't exist in eight out of ten other provinces is a reason not to do so. It would be impudent for me to suggest that I know what's good for the people of Quebec or British Columbia. That would be up to others, who know those areas better, but the fact that these pieces of legislation exist in two of our provincial jurisdictions is simply not a good reason to do it.

Those are my respectful submissions.

[Len Falco, President, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Len Falco, and as president of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce I would like to thank the chair and honourable members of this committee for allowing us the opportunity to appear today.

I am also speaking as the owner and operator of a full-service recruiting and staffing company that specializes in general staffing and human resources consulting.

My co-presenter this afternoon is Mr. Bill Tufts, who is the chair of our human resources committee at the Hamilton chamber. The human resources committee monitors employment, labour, and workplace legislation.

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce is one of Canada's most active local chambers, acting as Hamilton's recognized voice of business continually since 1845. We are in fact the oldest, largest, and most broadly based organization extant in the broader Golden Horseshoe, outside of the GTA.

Today we are comprised of over 1,900 individual members who represent 1,150 businesses and organizations of all sizes and sectors that collectively employ 75,000 people full time, in all parts of the city, and indeed many beyond our municipal boundaries.

It is essential to state that our broader membership also includes not-for-profit organizations and unionized corporations. In fact, we were one of the first chambers to actively embrace unions and welcome them to the city of Hamilton.

Hamilton is an important central transportation and distribution hub for road, air, marine, and rail. If Bill C-257 is passed, it would have an immense negative impact on Hamilton's economy and our industries, an effect that will be replicated all across Canada, from sea to sea to sea.

Additionally, we show complete support to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce regarding their views of Bill C-257.

The city of Hamilton has a superb transportation network, which is located at the centre of the Golden Horseshoe's industrial corridor. It has direct access to Toronto and points eastward as well as to the United States via Detroit or Buffalo along Highways 401 and 403 and the Queen Elizabeth Way.

The port of Hamilton handles over 12 million tonnes of cargo and is visited by over 700 vessels each year. This ranks Hamilton as the busiest of all Canadian Great Lakes ports.

A 2001 Stamm study determined that almost 4% of Ontario’s GDP and 30% of the greater Hamilton region's GDP is directly or indirectly connected to the operations centred on the port of Hamilton. This translates into an employment equivalent, considering both indirect and direct impacts, of approximately 220,000 jobs.

Since privatization, Hamilton International Airport’s airport-related workforce has grown from 726 to more than 1,300 full-time equivalent employees. Under TradePort management, passenger traffic at the Hamilton terminal has increased from 90,000 in 1996 to approximately 900,000 in 2002 and growing. Air cargo has increased by 50% since 1996. In 2002, 91,000 metric tonnes of cargo passed through the airport.

CN's Hamilton Metals Distribution Centre is located in the heart of Canada's largest steel-consuming market. The facility is home to Canada's steel manufacturing, distribution, and processing industry, and is located in one of North America's largest vehicle production areas. Furthermore, CN's Hamilton MDC is strategically positioned to do business in the largest Canada-U.S. steel corridor.

Proposed subsection 94(2.4) of Bill C-257 states:

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

This provision contained in Bill C-257 will have the following impact on the health and well-being of Canadians.

First, it will undermine the dependability of Canada’s infrastructure industries. Continuity of service in the federally regulated infrastructure industries is important to virtually all Canadian enterprises, not just those under federal jurisdiction.

For example, if a work stoppage took place in the transportation network, with services halted, ports closed, and so on, it would be felt by all Canadians and Canada's trading partners who rely on an uninterrupted flow of goods. Most federal businesses are providers of services where the ability to stockpile goods does not exist.

Secondly, it would detract from Canada’s attractiveness as a place in which to invest. In an era of global mobility of investment, potential investors to Canada would also negatively perceive such a provision.

Bill.

[Tim Secord, Canadian Legislative Director, United Transportation Union]

Thank you, Chair.

The United Transportation Union is an international trade union with over 125,000 members throughout Canada and the United States. We represent employees in the railway, bus, and airline industries, with a preponderance of our membership working in federal juridiction in Canada. Our members contribute heavily to the economic and social fabric of Canadian society at every level and in almost every community. Our members work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, in one of the most dangerous and demanding industries in Canada.

Currently, we're in contract negotiations with CN Rail with a strike and lockout deadline of February 9, 2007, looming before us. The committee should be aware that in accordance with the provisions of part 1 of the code, we sought a maintenance of activities agreement with CN; however, CN determined that no such agreement was necessary. In addition to the written text of this brief, the committee should also be aware that we've twice reached out to CN rail for a maintenance of activities agreement to deal with the issue of commuter transit in Toronto and Montreal, and still today there has been no response from CN.

We're pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee on this most important issue. We believe Bill C-257 can improve part 1 of the code by building a measure of fairness into it that currently does not exist. We believe this bill to be in the public interest and in the interest of fairness between workplace parties as a whole.

Labour law in Canada has long recognized the right to strike. This right provides a union its strongest opportunity for economic sanction to be leveraged on an employer through collective withdrawal of their services by its members to support its position in collective bargaining. The right to fair and free collective bargaining has been a fundamental right within our society for a very long time and is consistent with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted in 1998. This right to strike is fundamental to the Canada Labour Code and is but one of the many rights and obligations that govern labour relations in the federal sector.

The code acts as the vehicle by which both workplace parties, through their collective agreement relationship, can assure labour peace and measurable costs and benefits for a specific amount of time. The requirements related to the duty of fair representation and the grievance and arbitration process make sure workplace differences are resolved. The only opportunity a union has to bring economic pressure to bear on the employer is through the bargaining process, by exercising their right to strike at the expiration of an agreement; this committee knows full well that only 3% of collective agreement disputes ever get to the point of a strike or lockout situation.

Economically speaking, the balance of power between an employer and a union at the beginning of a strike is influenced by things both are entitled to consider. The union has to decide whether it will withdraw its services by engaging in a strike, while the employer must decide if they should hang onto positions that might result in a strike. Both parties begin a process whereby they determine, on the one hand, their ability to withstand a strike, and on the other hand, their acceptance of economic pressure through a strike.

The right to strike, as with all aspects of a union's functions, is set out carefully in the code. It is this process that provides a balance between the rights and obligations of the workplace parties in their relationship.

Replacement workers, not being a part of the bargaining unit, are strangers to that bargaining relationship. They have no level of participation in the collective bargaining process, nor do they have a community of interest with the employer. Replacement workers do not vote in the democratic process that seeks a strike mandate, and bringing replacement workers into the workplace interferes with the balance of power that the workplace parties have established and measured at the beginning of a strike. Research has shown linkages between the introduction of replacement workers and numerous negative effects. These negative effects include greater picket-line violence and unnecessarily prolonged strike action.

When replacement workers are brought into a strike situation, they normally come into direct contact with picketers and other union members who may also support the strike. This type of contact is counterproductive, inflammatory, and disruptive. Picketers view replacement workers with contempt, because they are aliens to the historical relationship between the employer and the striking employees. The replacement workers are seen as a means to dilute the economic pressure being placed on the strike-bound employer.

Such circumstances and the emotions involved become a recipe for escalating picket line incidents and increased vigilance, if and when violence should unfortunately occur.

It's in no one's interest to see violence occur at any time; however, there are a few examples when an unscrupulous employer has relied on this type of provocation to intimidate striking workers. Violence on picket lines can only poison relationships for years to come, in the workplace and in the community.

The effects of these poisoned relationships remain long after the strike is ended. If a picketer engages in criminal conduct, he or she is disciplined for it. That discipline is then handled under the collective bargaining agreement, and it has a tendency to delay the duration and the resolution of strikes.

Additionally, when all is considered together, these dynamics are harmful and will likely damage and/or interfere in the re-establishment of the bargaining relationship over the term of the next agreement.

Members of this committee understand the obligations and responsibilities that unions have under the code, and we're equally confident you are also aware of the employer's obligations and rights under the code. In the interests of time, we won't reiterate them here.

Suffice it to say that there are ample checks and balances built into the code, including numerous prohibitive clauses. Without getting into the morass of statistics, we believe the issue that needs to be looked at is what labour relations are like when replacement workers are used and what they're like when they aren't.

If one believes there's a balance of power under the code during a strike when replacement workers are allowed, then how is that balance maintained when an employer locks out its employees?

With that, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I'll close and thank the members of the committee for their time, and certainly the members of Parliament who saw this bill through to this level—and beyond, I'm sure.

[Douglas Coles, Second Vice-Président, Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much.

The Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce is a non-profit organization made up of business and professional people sharing a common goal: the economic development of the greater Charlottetown area. With over 740 members, the chamber represents a diverse network of small, medium-sized, and large businesses from almost every industry sector and business profession. Because Charlottetown is home to the headquarters of Veterans Affairs Canada and is a provincial capital, there are a number of federal public sector employers in our community with whom our local businesses have a vital business relationship.

It is the chamber's position that significant changes to the labour act, such as the prohibition of the use of replacement workers, fundamentally alters the basic premise for labour-management relations and potentially threatens the continuity of essential services provided by critical infrastructure workers. Such a change should not be made without a thorough understanding of what gap in the existing labour relations structure the amendment purports to resolve and a careful examination of the consequences to ensure that the overall result of the change will be beneficial.

Legislative changes that have the potential to destabilize federal labour-management relations may have serious repercussions for our members. Our members are very vulnerable to labour instability for the following reasons.

Many of our members are small to medium-sized businesses with limited capacity to absorb losses or delays arising from labour instability within federally regulated organizations, customers, or suppliers.

Because of the size of our province, chamber members are highly dependent upon the interprovincial transportation system for importing supplies and exporting product. Any labour instability related to federally regulated transportation will have a significant impact on our members' ability to conduct business.

The balance of power in labour-management relations is already shifting as the labour supply tightens and it becomes a sellers' market.

It is the chamber's position that significant changes to the labour act, such as the prohibition of the use of replacement workers, fundamentally alters the basic premise for labour-management relations. Again, any change cannot be made without a thorough understanding of what the amendment purports to resolve.

Legislative bans on permanent replacement workers exist in most jurisdictions in Canada. This means that striking workers have the right to their job once the strike is over. They cannot be permanently replaced by replacement workers who may have been temporarily hired during the strike.

The more stringent ban on the use of temporary replacement workers has been in place in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993, and in Ontario between 1993 and 1995. The chamber suggests that consideration of the labour relations climate in these provinces would indicate that such bans on even temporary replacement workers can have a polarizing effect on collective bargaining and a serious impact on the economy.

The chamber does not believe that Bill C-257 remedies any existing weakness in the labour relations framework in Canada. Indeed, the chamber is at a loss to understand what benefits would result from the passing of the legislation. Is there evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages? Is there evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the duration of work stoppages? Is there evidence that Canadian workers are being paid unfairly by employers?

In the 1990s, the Canada Labour Code underwent a careful review, involving thorough consultation with stakeholders, resulting in several important changes to the code, including a recourse for the unions that believe employers are abusing the use of replacement workers in order to undermine the union. Furthermore, the amendments provided protection for striking workers to be reinstated ahead of any replacement workers.

The chamber submits that there is no ostensible failing in the existing legislation that requires such a drastic change, and there has also not been sufficient study and consultation with the affected parties to fully appreciate how such a prohibition would affect all stakeholders.

Bill C-257 would create a distortion in the balance of negotiating power between employers and unions. While striking employees have the right to find work elsewhere, employers do not have the right to seek other workers. If the option to use replacement workers is removed from the labour relations model, the options for the employer would become more extreme: to have to accept the union's position; to face a complete shutdown of operations for the duration of the strike; or to go to government and seek back-to-work orders and binding arbitration.

The use of replacement workers does not undermine the power of unions in strike situations. Given the increasing difficulty in recruiting workers in even the best working conditions, finding workers who are capable and competent to perform the work and who are willing to face the negative messaging and ill will that is targeted at replacement workers is a significant challenge. Employers do not readily opt for this approach, if there is any possibility of negotiating a deal with the unions.

Bill C-257 is more drastic than existing comparable legislation in British Columbia, because it denies employees the right to cross picket lines. Furthermore, it makes no provision for essential services. Hence, strikes involving critical infrastructure workers could bring entire service sectors across Canada to a grinding halt.

In conclusion, Bill C-257 is an echo of legislation in place in the province of Quebec that has had negative effects on both labour relations and the economy in that province.

Bill C-257 is a proposal that lacks a clear purpose and a balanced benefit. The bill has proceeded to this point of review without due consultation of its potential impact on the labour relations framework in Canada. Our chamber urges the committee to recommend against the passage of Bill C-257.

This is respectfully submitted by John Gaudet, president of Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on replacement workers, we'll now continue to hear our witnesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to start with the Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce because they have some time restrictions on their end and wanted to make their submission.

Because we have three of you via teleconference, I will identify who I'd like to speak next. We're going to go with seven minutes of opening statements. I will indicate when you've got one minute left, so you don't have to look at your own stopwatch. We will proceed with a couple of rounds of questions--a seven-minute round, followed by a five-minute round.

Typically we'll have the MPs address the question. They may want to address the Hamilton chamber or the Winnipeg chamber. If you'd like to make a comment and there's some time, you can just identify yourselves as the Hamilton chamber, for example, and then the teleconference experts will make sure they put the camera on the appropriate chamber.

We'll get started with the testimony. I have some announcements, but since we don't have all our members here yet, I'll save that until after we've had a chance to hear from the opening witnesses before we start our rounds of questioning. By that time, hopefully, we'll have all our members.

I would like to welcome the Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce. I believe we have Mr. Douglas Coles and Ms. Kathryn Coll.

Please go ahead, Mr. Coles, for seven minutes.

[Robin Rensby, Senior Director, Human Resources, Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations]

Thank you. I will be very brief. I echo David's comments that we appreciate that you have allowed us to come before you today.

My perspective is somewhat narrower, and it is that of an employer who has bargaining unit members who may well be implicated in this whole process. So I would start by saying I support David's comments about the need for rigorous consultation and analysis of the whole framework of labour relations in this country before moving forward. In Bill C-257, it seems to me, one has to ask the question about things like essential services—I know you have heard about these from other people—the requirement to bargain in good faith, and the potential for upward pressure on public sector wage rates. To me, it comes down to a very simple question: how does this bill make the framework better? When I read it, I can't find a good answer to that question.

I would point out that I see a number of references to the provincial models, and I would echo some of the comments you heard earlier today that the provincial models may not be appropriate. Some of the comments say those bills were passed in provincial jurisdictions and days lost to strike went down, but I haven't seen anything that talks about cause and effect. Would an employer capitulate and sign an agreement they might not otherwise sign in the absence of this kind of legislation? I would argue that may well be the case.

In the interests of time I'm going to cut to the only image I would ask you to consider. In our 2005-06 annual report we reported that there were about 140 million transits across our bridges in the greater Montreal area. As I read section 87.4, the definition of essential services, it is arguably the case that we could not define those bridges as an essential service. While it may sound somewhat circular, we might then close the bridges in the best interests of public safety. I would just ask you to keep in mind an image of 140 million transits per year and the bridges in the greater Montreal area closed. If this is a result of Bill C-257, I fail to see that it's a good result.

Thank you.

[Kim Furlong, Director, Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Kim Furlong, and I am the director of federal government relations for the Retail Council of Canada.

Founded in 1963, RCC is the voice of retail in this country. We are a not-for-profit association representing about 40,000 stores of all retail formats, including independent merchants, regional and national retail chains, and online merchants.

With annual sales of close to $400 billion, the retail industry is the second-largest employer in this country. In 2005, retailers injected more than $7 billion dollars into the economy, through store design, construction, technology, and telecommunications. Indeed, retail is one of the most dynamic economic players in our economy.

On behalf of our members, we'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to share our views before you today. We, too, had some concerns before Christmas that we wouldn't have a chance to appear, so I thank you.

Our perspective is anchored in the ramifications of the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code for those who rely on the products and services of federally regulated employers. RCC believes the economic impact of the proposed changes will be extremely damaging to the Canadian economy. In an interconnected world, where economies of scale rely on the ability to move goods quickly and to interface with technology, the thought of having transport or telecommunications services in Canada suspended, even for a short time, is very alarming.

Supply chain logistics have evolved significantly over the last fifteen years. The days of big inventories in warehouses are no longer. Business models such as just-in-time delivery and lean production have become the cornerstones of our economy.

The ability to move goods efficiently is essential to Canada's competitiveness as a trading nation. The Vancouver port dispute is a haunting case in point. The disruption caused by the job actions of independent truckers in the summer of 2005 was devastating to our sector: containers just sitting there and the supply chain completely disrupted, costing the Canadian economy untold millions of dollars. This was one event, in one location, and relatively minor compared to what would happen should Bill C-257 become reality, and the cost was tremendous.

Aside from perishable goods and items that didn't make it onto shelves, such as back-to-school items, the cost of this labour dispute was far more significant than what was not consumed. In fact, the strike caused a loss of business for the city of Vancouver and its port workers. Because of the uncertainty created by the dispute, some importers, including several Retail Council of Canada members, have chosen to diversify their import routing and have altered shipping patterns by using other entry points, such as the east coast.

Members of this committee must consider the impact that a labour dispute under the guidelines of Bill C-257 could have on the economy of a region and on the workers in the long term. In fact, Bill C-257 threatens Canada's competitiveness. In a world where Canada is an exporting country and competing for a greater share of world trade, it seems nonsensical to implement legislation that brings instability to the investment and business climate. Canada's ability to attract foreign direct investment is not to be taken for granted, especially when we're competing against giants such as India and China, which are leading the way.

In addition, and very importantly, the traditional argument that our proximity to the U.S. market makes Canada a prime location to invest could easily be refuted if our labour laws were to interfere with the free flow of goods. Canada's competitive advantage lies in our ability to deploy just-in-time delivery to the U.S. market. Should airlines or railways be out of operation, this competitive advantage would be significantly damaged.

In addition to these transportation issues, a breakdown, even minute, in the telecommunications system would have a direct impact on the retail industry. Canadians are the world's top debit card users, and the vast majority of retail purchases are card payments. A slowdown in the processing of card payments would mean loss of sales for our members. A breakdown in the system would mean a slowdown in the Canadian economy.

It has been clearly demonstrated over the last few years that the dynamism of the North American economy is being fuelled in part by consumption. Canadian consumers expect to be able to have access to their bank accounts at all times, and they rely on credit for many of their routine purchases. An inability to approve a card transaction means no sale.

Again, we urge members of this committee to think about the larger picture and to consider what these changes to the Canada Labour Code could have on Canadians in general.

Having clearly defined the possible risks associated with the proposed legislative changes included in Bill C-257, we now turn our attention to the raison d'etre of this bill.

After reviewing the recent history of federally regulated labour disputes, RCC does not understand the need for these changes. The proposed changes eliminate the delicate balance that was reached with the adoption of the Sims report in 1999. The report was the product of an extensive, tripartite, cross-Canada consultation led by Andrew Sims, and was assisted by a panel of experts appointed by the federal minister of that time to bring recommendations to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code.

The expert panel in its report entitled Seeking a Balance, examined the issue of replacement workers and concluded that, and I quote:

Replacement workers can be necessary to sustain the economic viability of an enterprise in the face of a harsh economic climate and unacceptable union demands. It is important in a system of free collective bargaining that employers maintain that option, unrestrained by any blanket prohibition. If this option is removed, employers will begin to structure themselves to reduce their reliance on their permanent workforces for fear of vulnerability, to the detriment of both workers and employers alike.

The report also recommends that:

There should be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers.

Where the use of replacement workers in a dispute is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's representative capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, this should be declared an unfair labour practice.

In the event of a finding of such an unfair labour practice, the Board should be given specific remedial power to prohibit the further use of replacement workers in the dispute.

The evidence shows that the 1999 changes have brought a balance to the labour climate. In 2005 and 2006, 97% of all collective bargaining agreements under federal jurisdiction were signed without work stoppage.

In conclusion, in light of the fact that this is a very divisive issue, and that the Sims report recommended against the inclusion of a ban on replacement workers, and that federally regulated sectors were chosen and put under federal jurisdiction because of their strategic importance to the functioning of our nation, the eagerness of proponents of Bill C-257 to shift the fine balance that was reached in 1999 is puzzling. The RCC believes that at a time when Canada faces tremendous pressure to be competitive with regard to the rest of the world and we need to enhance our productivity, the thought of implementing legislation that would send a signal to foreign investors that our key infrastructure industries could be hijacked at any moment by a labour disruption is not key to improving Canadian prosperity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, I call the meeting to order.

I just want to say thanks to the witnesses for being here today, and I apologize for any challenges we had by changing the room. We may be missing a witness or two as a result of the room change, but we do need to get going so we can make sure we have enough time to answer questions.

We had a steering meeting, which we'll discuss a little more afterwards, but one of the suggestions that came out of the steering meeting earlier today was that we try to limit speeches to a couple of minutes and get to some questions. I know we're not going to be able to convince our witnesses to change their minds at all, so we want to get to our questions as quickly as possible.

Once again, you can have some preamble, but the witnesses are here, and we're here to ask them questions. Try to make the best use of that. This was a suggestion of the steering committee, so I will just pass it along.

What we'll do is start now with Mr. Stewart-Patterson.

We have seven minutes each. We will start round one with seven minutes for questions and answers; round two with five minutes; and, with any luck, round three, which will be a little bit shorter, with five minutes as well.

Welcome, Mr. Stewart-Patterson. We'll have your seven-minute opening, please. I will let you know when you have one minute left.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I tend to agree that where this committee has been effective and has got some work done--and it has got some work done--we have met as a subcommittee to air out some of the positions of each of the parties and had, I thought, a respectful and thoughtful conversation amongst ourselves. I think we achieved some things there.

The object is to make this committee work and to get some work done on behalf of the people of Canada and our constituents. The more we can use a process to get us there, the better.

Where I've been frustrated, Mr. Chair, is when on a couple of occasions—this is why I said it worked relatively well as opposed to perfectly well—an agenda arrived at committee where obviously decisions had been made somewhere that were a surprise to me. I felt I wasn't given an opportunity to really get into that and find out why, how, etc., and how that would impact further work that some of us wanted to get done.

But I thought overall we got some work done. We're into a fairly contentious piece of business right now with Bill C-257, and we have to expect that there will be some manoeuvering, shall we say, going on. But overall, I think we've been achieving some success, and I think the success has been achieved because we have been meeting in that smaller group from time to time, a subcommittee, to air out and deal with some of those areas that might be contentious and get them out of the way or at least addressed so that we can move forward.

It's about relationships, and about building relationships. For me, that's what happened there and caused the committee to be more constructive, proactive, and able to get some things done.

[Peter Massy]

I have two comments.

First of all, it's not required in Bill C-257 because section 87.4 has it and has laid it out. There are examples of how section 87.4 works.

Second, on the issue of balance, section 87.4 says that we cannot have a labour dispute unless we agree to a maintenance of activities.

The term “replacement workers” is a different kind of language because in that case the union has to prove they've actually hired them for the purposes of undermining the trade union.

So on one hand, we can't even have a labour dispute unless we sign a maintenance of activity. On the other hand, we can't challenge the replacement workers under the existing code unless we first prove the motive of the company. There is a blatant imbalance right there.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Another concern I have with this proposed legislation is that, as much as we've referenced the Quebec example, at least the ban on replacement workers in Quebec was detailed in the legislation. There was at least some work put into it. You see some legislation of 90-odd pages, and look at this: it's two pages. It doesn't even begin to deal with the plethora of situations you may have that are off the general plane.

One situation in particular that I'm concerned about is telecommunications. I have it in my notes that the Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled that telecommunication services are not essential to public health and safety within the meaning of the Canada Labour Code. What ramification is this going to have on the services you provide and for the ordinary Canadian? I mean, 911 deals with telecommunications, the RCMP, and the Department of National Defence. What is this going to mean for the ordinary Canadian requiring emergency services? What is this going to mean for your organizations, for services with nuclear power generation stations, hydro-monitoring sites?

It is amazing that it wasn't contemplated in Bill C-257 that this would not be thought of. It seems it was rushed through without ample background and research being put into potential challenges associated with this.

Is there some feedback you can share on the telecommunications side?

[David Bradley]

I think that's what we tried to say in our submission as well, that we have a relatively stable labour relations climate in our industry. We said that we don't see the necessity for Bill C-257. We don't know what it would bring to the table to give whatever balance is supposedly missing from the workers' side right now. It's there; it's working.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

When I look at Bill C-257, I look at what is the optimal balance between negotiating parties. My concern with this proposed legislation is that it would take away from that optimal balance.

Mr. Martin mentioned the experience in Ontario. I look at the successive premiers since then. Mr. Harris, Mr. Eves, and Mr. McGuinty all said they didn't want to revisit that period in Ontario, when we had a recession, and it also coincided with the use of this legislation.

I wonder if that's because it damages the optimal balance. I would certainly like to get your input on how this affects the balance that we need to have in these negotiations.

I look at Ontario and Quebec, two provinces currently with different approaches in labour legislation.

Mr. Barnes, you mentioned there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation results in shorter durations of work...and that's what I found as well as I looked through this. Over the 2003-05 period, work stoppages in Quebec were 47 days on average, compared to 38 in Ontario. This suggests that jurisdictions that don't adopt a ban on replacement workers are able to more successfully have peaceful labour relations.

To further highlight this point, I think Human Resources provides statistics continuously from 1976 to 2005. Continuously, if you look at the number of work stoppages per 10,000 employees, Ontario has had a far greater level of success than Quebec. As recently as 2005, the year for which we have the most recent available statistics, it's 0.12 out of 10,000 employees, versus 0.25 for Quebec.

When you look at something on a broad level over a quarter of a century and it speaks to a trend, I think there's something we can learn from that.

I want to get input from Mr. Barnes, Mr. Pollard, and Mr. Jennery on how you feel this might damage the optimal balance.

[Peter Massy]

It would be incorrect to say that activities are not maintained during a labour dispute. In our brief to the committee we provided a copy of a letter—I'm sorry that it's not translated--called “Maintenance of Activities”. There's nothing in Bill C-257 that would suggest section 87.4 is going to be removed.

In the labour dispute with Telus in 2003, we signed off a letter that explicitly ensured that our members would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to maintain 911 emergency, police, fire, ambulance, hospitals, coast guards, and anything else, if need be, for the purposes of protecting the public as mandated by the code.

So the code clearly has...and this is where the imbalance is. The code clearly lays that out, that we have to protect the public. At the same time, we don't have the same balance when it comes to the use of replacement workers.

[Peter Barnes]

But our understanding of the effect of this bill is that Bill C-257 would mean that essential services would no longer be protected. The prohibitions contained in Bill C-257 would invalidate or impair the ability to provide those services.

[Peter Barnes]

I can't comment on the matters between one of my members and the union. I'm not here to represent Telus. I think our big focus is essential services and the lack of protection of essential services that's contained in this bill. Certainly as replacement workers, or lack thereof, affects this, that's really our focus.

[David Bradley, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is David Bradley. I'm CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance. We represent in excess of 4,500 trucking companies across Canada.

It is our view that Bill C-257 is unnecessary, and if you'll bear with me, I'd like to explain why.

First, a little bit about our industry. We are the dominant mode of freight transportation in the country. We touch 90% of all consumer products and foodstuffs, and we make an exceedingly important contribution in terms of Canada's international trade, hauling two-thirds, by value, of Canada's trade with the United States.

The broader trucking industry includes for-hire carriers, which can be either federally or provincially regulated, and private carriers, which are those that move their own goods and are provincially regulated. The industry employs in excess of 350,000 Canadians. Those are direct jobs.

A third of the total trucking labour force are employee drivers in the for-hire trucking sector—and when I say employee drivers, that's distinct from the independent owner-operator contractor.

The proportion of truck drivers who fall under the federal labour regulations is not known with certainty, but according to HRSDC, just over 100,000 employees in trucking are covered by at least some part of the Canada Labour Code.

Trucking is made up predominantly of small firms. About 78% of employee drivers work for companies with fewer than 100 people, and 39% work for companies employing fewer than 20.

The level of unionization in our industry—at no more than 20% of employee drivers—is relatively low compared to the general workforce.

With regard to Bill C-257, for us it's a question of balance. Collective bargaining is a question of balance. Parties to any negotiation attempt to gain an upper hand through various means. The role of the regulatory environment is to try to ensure a level playing field and to maintain the appropriate balance in negotiations, not to confer the upper hand to either party through legislation or regulation.

In our view, the current climate of labour relations in the trucking industry would suggest that balance exists. While the level of unionization, as I said, is low, the portion of the industry that is unionized is characterized by stable labour relations. In the period 2000 to 2006, there were only seven work stoppages in the trucking industry in companies regulated by part I of the Canada Labour Code. The average length of work stoppage during that period was 15.5 days. There were no strikes or lockouts by companies under federal jurisdiction in either 2004 or 2005. Not known in these work stoppages is the degree to which replacement workers were used. However, we feel that there were very few, if any, used.

The nature and structure of the trucking industry has characteristics that promote balance and labour stability. For one, competition is always vigorous and often fierce. There are at least 10,000 for-hire trucking companies competing for freight, and that's a reflection of economic deregulation that has existed in our industry since the late-1980s. Economic deregulation and fierce competition dictate that carriers will survive only if costs are controlled and if they provide the service to which their customers have become accustomed.

Trucking service is a perishable service. It's not like a manufactured product, where if you don't get your price today it can sit on the shelf until another customer comes in tomorrow. We don't have that luxury in the trucking industry. If a carrier's not happy with the price it is able to obtain for its service, there's always someone else who will take the freight, either at that price or at a lower price.

There's competition not only for freight but also for qualified drivers. There's a lot of driver mobility, and the resulting turnover or churn in the industry is extremely high. In some sectors it approaches 100%. So in the event of a protracted strike at a trucking company, the organization would soon be out of business. Competitors would move quickly to take over that freight.

From a broader societal view, we raise the following concerns. Trucking serves every community accessible by road. In remote areas, many communities are served only by truck, and delays in delivering to Canada's most vulnerable communities could be devastating for its residents.

Of particular concern is the volume of just-in-time freight delivered across Canada and into the United States. Transportation disruptions in just-in-time delivery could affect our major trading partner's confidence in the cross-border supply chain, resulting in reduced sourcing of products from Canada.

In the event of a labour stoppage in other federally regulated freight modes such as rail, we simply do not have the capacity, nor do we have the kind of equipment, that would be used to move most of what rail does. So it would prevent us from taking up any slack that there may be.

The potential to have transportation services halted, ports closed, and intermodal facilities shut down would be felt by all Canadians.

As I said at the outset, we feel that Bill C-257 is unnecessary. Some have even referred to it as a solution in search of a problem. Evidence from jurisdictions across Canada shows that either banning or allowing replacement workers has little or no impact on the frequency or duration of work stoppages.

Again, according to HRSDC, the average number of working days lost because of strikes has gone down in nearly all provinces in the past several decades—including British Columbia, where there is a ban, and Ontario, where there is not. The existence of or the lack of anti-replacement-worker legislation appears to have nothing to do with this general trend in labour relations.

Parliamentary intervention to order employees back to work occurred frequently before 1999, when the amendments to the Canada Labour Code prevented the necessity of such legislation. Bill C-257 would turn the clock back. Pressures for return-to-work legislation to assure continuity of essential services could again become the norm.

Thank you very much.

[Nick Jennery, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Nick Jennery, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. I represent the small, medium, and large grocery distributors on both the retail and food service sides. It's about $72 billion on the retail side, and about $12 billion on the food service side, to companies that you may know, such as Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, and Safeway, as well as some of the smaller companies like Thrifty and Kitchen Table.

I have provided members of the committee with an annual report that describes in more detail who we are and what we do. I've also provided a fact sheet on the number of direct employees that we have. We have a little more than 428,000 in the industry. Finally, we do operate, through 24,000 stores, in every community in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I'm here to provide some input into Bill C-257 and to outline my industry's concerns with its provisions. For our sector and for the Canadian consumer, any legislation prohibiting replacement workers for companies that fall under the Canada Labour Code could have very serious implications for our industry. I do not believe this proposed legislation is in the interests of Canadians or Canadian business, and I have developed a submission for consideration by the standing committee. For today's purpose, I did want to highlight just three specific concerns.

The first concern is our industry's dependency on the transportation sector. My members account for about 85% of all the grocery products that are distributed in Canada to all of those 24,000 stores, hospitals, restaurants, institutions, and long-term care facilities, and each one of those products passes through a distribution or a retail network.

CCGD members do not fall under the Canada Labour Code per se, but we are reliant on rail and interprovincial trucking to do that and to meet the food needs of Canadians. At any one time, if you take over a two-week period, there are approximately 10,000 food shipments either in rail or on trucks in transit. This is equivalent to hundreds of millions of kilograms of food.

There is not a significant excess capacity in the transport sector, and CCGD members operate on a just-in-time inventory basis. At any one time, we have between three and ten days of inventory in the pipeline, and our efficiency is also our vulnerability. This means that if a sizable transport company such as CN or CP is prevented from providing services due to a strike and anti-replacement-worker legislation in place, significant supply disruptions will occur.

My industry has experienced two significant labour-related transportation disruptions in recent years: the Port of Vancouver disruption in 2005, and the Atlantic trucking dispute in 2003. Just to give you a flavour of what happened, a huge portion of food supply for Atlantic Canada is shipped in by truck, especially during the winter months. A labour disruption in 2003, with a blockade that lasted only two days, resulted in shortages of food and required the direct intervention of the Premier of Nova Scotia. Both examples are relatively minor compared to what would occur if CN or CP or one of their major rail yards were prevented from operating due to anti-replacement-worker legislation.

The second point I'd like to make to the members of the committee is the balance of powers during the negotiation or collective bargaining process. Proponents of Bill C-257 are claiming that anti-replacement-worker legislation is necessary to introduce a balance within the collective bargaining process, since, without the legislation, unionized employers under the Canada Labour Code are permitted to continue operating during a strike. This is simply not the case.

Under the present provisions of the code, fairness and equity are maintained during the collective bargaining process through two powers that balance each other and ensure that both parties are equally motivated to achieve a fair and equitable agreement. These powers are the employees' right to strike, balanced by an employer's ability to try to withstand a strike through the continuation of operations.

The employees' right to strike is supported by their ability to receive strike pay from the organizing body and the employees' ability to seek temporary or alternative work during the strike. Banning the use of replacement workers hinders the ability of the employer to withstand a strike, and dramatically increases the bargaining power of the employees during the collective bargaining process.

Anti-replacement-worker legislation introduces a bias against the employer and swings the collective bargaining process dramatically in favour of the employee or the unions.

The third point I want to quickly make is about the competitive impact on our industry. I've mentioned the size of our industry, and we're clearly in the fight of our life. We're a 1% to 2% after-tax business, with labour being the second-largest input into the industry.

CCGD members operating in both Quebec and British Columbia have had extensive experience with anti-replacement-worker legislation. With provincial anti-replacement-worker legislation, the threat of being unable to continue operations in the event of a labour dispute has decreased the bargaining power of employers during contract negotiations and it has translated directly into higher supplements and increased costs for unionized employers. In a highly competitive environment, unionized employers are increasingly competing in all sectors of the economy against non-union competitors.

Implementing anti-replacement-worker provisions will further undermine the competitiveness of unionized employers and provide non-union employers with a government-regulated advantage. The outcome of this will be that Bill C-257 will translate into increased costs for the users of services of unionized companies that fall under the Canada Labour Code.

Given the reliance of virtually all aspects of the Canadian industry on this sector, it is ultimately the Canadian consumer who will pay for the costs of Bill C-257, in the form of higher prices for a very broad spectrum of goods and services. Bill C-257, in our opinion, may actually endanger the unionized jobs it is endeavouring to protect, and it is a reality of the modern global marketplace that businesses must remain cost-competitive in order to survive.

To conclude, I believe the Canada Labour Code and the powers of the Labour Relations Board provide boundaries on the use of replacement workers and ensure that both parties are equally motivated to achieve a mutually beneficial collective agreement. Bill C-257 would upset the balance between employers and unions in the collective bargaining process. In the long term, this will undermine the ability of employers to bargain effectively and will have a tremendous impact on the competitiveness of unionized employers versus domestic and global competitors. CCGD is most concerned about the potential of the bill to hamper our ability to feed and service Canadian consumers, your constituents. As such, we are opposed to the implementation of this legislation.

I believe the government has a responsibility to Canadians rather than to any party at the collective bargaining table. Therefore, the government must ensure that labour legislation does not hamper the access of Canadians to basic needs, such as what my members distribute.

I would urge members of the standing committee to reconsider their support of this legislation in light of its far-reaching social and economic implications, and I'm most happy to assist the committee in any way in providing further information, as you see fit.

Thank you.

[Peter Barnes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. My name is Peter Barnes, and I'm president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. I too am pleased and indeed honoured to be here today to share our concerns about Bill C-257.

You should have in front of you a copy of our submission, which we filed with the clerk. The copy you have is in both official languages. We've also provided a copy of a report by Human Resources and Social Development Canada. It addresses many of the questions about investment and about strike duration and frequency, which I understand many committee members had asked about.

I'm here today to urge you not to proceed with this piece of legislation.

The CWTA is the authority on wireless issues, developments and trends in Canada. The association represents over 200 members in cellular and PCS, messaging, mobile radio, fixed wireless and mobile satellite carriers as well as companies that develop and produce products and services for the industry. Together, our members provide 95 per cent of the wireless services used by Canadians.

Our most pressing concern is for the safety of Canadians. We believe Bill C-257 will undermine public safety in Canada by preventing wireless telecommunications companies from maintaining the delivery of essential services to Canadians in the event of a strike or lockout. In addition, CWTA shares the concerns of other witnesses before this committee, concerns such as that the bill will significantly change the existing balance in part I of the Canada Labour Code without a full consultation; that a prohibition on replacement workers could lead to longer and indeed more frequent work stoppages; that Bill C-257 could require Parliament to pass back-to-work legislation in strike situations; and that Bill C-257 will damage Canada's economy, particularly with regard to small and medium-sized companies, as well as suppliers.

Recognizing their status as an enabling industry for all Canadians, telecommunications carriers join rail and banking as a federally regulated industry, bound by a range of federal legislation and statutes, in this case, the Canada Labour Code.

Nationally, Canada's wireless carriers employ approximately 15,000 people. Of these, the majority are unionized workers. Within each carrier, unionized workers undertake the majority of key operational requirements: including network operations — which includes the day to day maintenance and operation of the various networks provided by each carrier — engineering, maintenance, customer service, billing and other.

When I speak of wireless carriers, I want to emphasize that I do not mean only Bell, Rogers, and Telus. Among our membership, there are at least ten smaller regional carriers that serve communities like Thunder Bay, Kenora, or Prince Rupert. For these companies, the inability to meet their service commitments in a strike would be devastating to them—and to their communities, more importantly.

Canada's wireless telecommunications industry provides critical public safety and security services to municipalities, police, fire fighters, EMS, and to individual Canadians every day.

While most of us think of wireless telephony as being strictly a consumer product, wireless products and services are the backbone of the public safety and emergency response infrastructure in Canada. Wireless products and technologies are present in every aspect of Canada's safety infrastructure, helping hospitals, police forces, fire and ambulance services, and search and rescue teams do their jobs every day. In the case of police, for example, the various wireless services and technologies are part of the daily tools used by officers in the field. These provide uninterrupted, two-way communications between officers in a squad car under dispatch and services such as mobile fingerprinting, crime databases, and so on.

These, as I think you understand, can be a matter of life or death for officers in the field, allowing them to quickly identify suspects and be ready to respond appropriately to potentially dangerous situations within seconds. The majority of police forces use commercial networks managed by our members for these services.

Canada's wireless carriers currently meet the Solicitor General's standards of providing lawful access, upon receiving a warrant, to our voice networks. This means having dedicated security staff who work exclusively to provide police services on a 24/7 basis. We also provide a crucial role in assisting Canadians during emergency situations. Whether it was during the ice storm of 1998, the Vancouver mudslides, the fires in Kelowna, or the floods in Manitoba, wireless carriers were on the front lines working with emergency services personnel to provide a secure and fast communications channel for emergency assistance.

All of these services are conditional on having trained staff who can step in at a moment's notice with a robust, well-maintained infrastructure. In the event of a strike, with no ability to use any replacement workers except for select management personnel, wireless carriers would have grave difficulty providing these essential services. For these reasons, I would ask all honourable members to vote no to this bill.

I thank you. Merci.

[Anthony Pollard, President, Hotel Association of Canada]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Tony Pollard. I'm president of the Hotel Association of Canada. As I said, we want to thank you for this opportunity to be here today.

We're very strongly opposed to this bill, and right at the outset we recommend that it not go forward. Let me just give you a very brief background on what the hotel business is, how big we are, and what we do.

Last year, in 2006, we generated revenues of about $17.6 billion. The value-added from our industry, that's all the things that go into it and all the people who depend upon us, was another $16.2 billion. Perhaps more importantly for the benefit of this committee, we employ 378,000 people across the country directly or indirectly. The wages and salaries of all these individuals came to about $6.7 billion last year.

Also, as I like to point out to our friends in government whenever I appear before these committees, the revenues generated for all three levels of government, or what most of us would probably know as taxes, were about $6.9 billion last year, with $3 billion going to the federal government. Again, that's something to underline. I'd like to point out that most of you look upon us as pretty good friends because of those numbers we generate for you.

This bill aims to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from using other workers, including existing non-bargaining employees, to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. Now the current part of part I of the Canada Labour Code came into being after years of hard work, including the task force headed up by Andrew Sims.

The Sims task force attempted to create a balance between the interests of employers with those of the workers. The title of the report, “Seeking a Balance”, I think is very telling. Unfortunately, it did not reach unanimity on the replacement worker issues. The majority report recommended a provision that would give employers flexibility in meeting their operating responsibilities, but would prevent them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.

After the report had been released and with the intervention of the Minister of Labour, the end result was a provision based upon the majority view. As such, the current version of part I was developed through a process that attempted to address the interests of all stakeholders, not those of just one stakeholder at the expense of others. But that is precisely what we believe Bill C-257 would do.

Further, it would undo years of effort of developing fair labour legislation at the federal level. Industries that fall under federal jurisdiction, including some hotels, have endured work stoppages over the years. This has caused many difficulties for Canadians and for Canadian businesses. There have been countless situations where back-to-work legislation has been required. This has significantly diminished since 1999, because we believe we now have a legislative framework that is more conducive to all the parties settling their own disputes.

The proposed legislative changes would negatively impact workers. The best protection for a worker who is on strike is to have confidence that there will be a job to return to. That is best assured by allowing that enterprise to remain operational during a strike. It is important to recognize that a hotel never closes. When a hotel does close, it is often very difficult to reopen. We all suffer, including our employees. This proposed legislation could most definitely result in this outcome.

While some suggest that banning the use of other workers would result in more industrial harmony, studies have shown that anti-replacement-worker legislation often results in an increase in strike incidents and duration. Therefore, longer strikes with limits on the enterprise's ability to continue operations can harm a worker's job security. If the bill is passed we will go back, unfortunately, to a far more contentious labour relations climate.

Therefore, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we recommend the change proposed in Bill C-257 should not go forward without a comprehensive review of its implications for Canadian businesses, the employment legislation review process, and the overall balance of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, we will now continue to hear witnesses on Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Our order of business is to have some committee business and then some witnesses, but I'm just going to switch that around. We're going to have our committee business right after we hear from our witnesses.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be here today for this very important legislation. We're going to give each of you seven minutes for your opening remarks. and then we'll have a couple of rounds of questions—three rounds, if possible, but two rounds for sure—of seven minutes in the first round followed by a second round of five minutes. Any round after that will be five minutes as well. So if you're not able to get all your points out, hopefully you'll be able to during the questions and answers.

Joining us through video conference is Mr. Massy from Burnaby.

Can you guys hear us?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Hattin, regarding your business, I have heard from businesses in my own riding that have said they're concerned about this, and they've given me different reasons. You were asked a little bit, I think by Mr. Hiebert, about the example. Can you tell me specifically what infrastructure you are most concerned would be affected if Bill C-257 became law?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Sinclair, do you have a copy of Bill C-257 in front of you?

[Jerry Lampert]

I was wondering if I could make a quick response.

Jim posed the rhetorical question, “What are you trying to accomplish here?” That still is the fundamental question we're trying to grapple with. The record since the Sims task force and the legislation that followed clearly indicates that there's no need for this legislation, that the current system is working.

So we have trouble understanding why, at this particular time, there's a need for a major change to current federal labour code legislation. It's being done in such a way as to really fly in the face of the kind of relationship we've developed in British Columbia, where the sides are willing to sit down at the table and work through any changes that are necessary in labour code and employment standards.

Jim Sinclair's organization and my organization try to cooperate in a number of ways, but when it comes to major changes to the labour code, we have a process and a system in B.C. that allows the parties to be at the table discussing these things. I fail to see in the current approach to Bill C-257 how that's been done, and I fail to see how it's going to make a significant positive change to an environment that's already positive.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I don't want to interrupt you, but what I want to know are facts. I want people to show me, in Bill C-257 and the B.C. act, what the similarities and differences are.

[Jason Koshman]

Under Bill C-257, at clause 2, a plain reading of proposed subsection 94(2.1) would indicate that you are permitted to use management in some capacity.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses who have come before the committee.

This legislation that's before this committee needs guidance particularly from the B.C. and Quebec models, to see what the similarities and the differences are. That is what I think I need to understand further from the witnesses. Unfortunately, there wasn't a great deal of clarification. I'm hoping that with my questions, there could be some.

I had an opportunity to look at part 5 of the Labour Relations Code from British Columbia. From what I read—and I want to make sure this is correct—in terms of the areas of difference between the B.C. model and this particular model, one is on the issue of employees being able to cross the picket line.

A second is the issue in clause 3 of the bill, which talks about $1,000 fines per day. I believe there is a maximum of $10,000 in B.C., so that was the other major difference that I saw between the B.C. code and Bill C-257.

I'm not sure the third one is major or minor, but it's on the issue of the essential service provision of the act, which is paragraph 72(1)(i), it speaks of “health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia”. When it deals with essential services under the present legislation that we have, part I of the Canada Labour Code basically speaks of health and safety as the provisions that need to be resolved before one can go on strike. It seems that the only added caveat is the welfare.

Mr. Jason Koshman, are you a legal expert? I would like to hear from somebody from labour and somebody else from the business community so that I can figure out what the similarities and the differences are between the B.C. code and Bill C-257.

[Robert Hattin, President, Edson Packaging Machinery, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Jean-Michel.

I'm trying to put the face of a small, growing enterprise, based in Ontario, to the effects that we anticipate with Bill C-257. My name is Robert Hattin, and I'm the president and chief executive officer of Edson Packaging Machinery. We're a medium-sized technology company based in Hamilton, 40 kilometres from the New York border. We employ engineers, labourers, accountants, and marketers. We're a very diversified but small and growing organization. Eighty percent of our technology and our products are exported mainly to the U.S.

When we reviewed this, I read the bill and was asked to put the face of Bill C-257 to a small, growing organization, and I came away with this: we see no compelling reason for Bill C-257, and therefore obviously we recommend the rejection of this bill as it is currently written.

Our first issue is that it really is going to undo an act of Parliament that was constructed in 1999. What we see is balance, and I think the gentleman, and even Mr. Sinclair, has indicated that there has not been much labour strife since 1999.

It seems to me—and again, we're a small organization—that the infrastructure we rely on is absolutely important, and our customers, 80% of whom are non-Canadian and rely upon efficient ingress and egress of goods and services, would assume that we have an efficient system for which there are no disputes and there are no disruptions.

My company and tens of thousands of other exporters rely upon these essential services, whether it's trucking companies, ports, railways, telecommunications, banks, and so on. Our economy really is so tightly integrated—it just is—that if any of those shut down, millions of Canadians are not just inconvenienced, they are instantly inconvenienced. People don't get paid. Cashflow goes down the tube, especially for many of the small businesses that are not even exporters.

Let me give you an example on a broader scale. In 1998 there was a strike at a Flint, Michigan, brake plant. They made the brake pads for Chevrolets, of all things. It went on for two months and resulted in a $20-billion economic disruption in Canada, caused layoffs at General Motors in Oshawa, and so forth, because they couldn't get a simple brake pad. That was one strike, one company, and it had that serious an effect.

If we see Bill C-257 going ahead—I flew up here—a strike by a de-icing crew or security workers would disrupt all air travel. And I'm sure that for you, as members who have to go back to your constituencies, those things would certainly be not just inconvenient but inefficient for your representation.

The second issue that struck me was the omnibus size and severity of this bill. As other people have said, it seems like a pill for which there is no ill at the moment. But the part that bothers me, especially, is the fact that it doesn't provide exemption for essential services. I'm not certain, but the way it's written, it just seems so broad-based that it could be very damaging to the safety and security of people who are reliant upon many of these things.

I'll try to put a little bit of a face to what we have seen. We have recently imported equipment from Italy. It went through at least five groups of federally regulated employees. The machine got here in two weeks. Excellent. Our customer, who's in the United States, to whom we'll re-export this, is saying, “Great job; we rely upon that and we'll continue to do business with you.” That's kind of the heightened sense of integration that our economy relies on.

I'd like to just step back and say that when our company does 8,000 banking transactions and 198 flights and mails thousands of letters a year, is this something we really need? For us, I look at the point Mr. Sinclair made. Have we reached that point in our maturity of industrial relations where we need this counterproductive legislation?

Thank you.

[Jean Michel Laurin, Vice-President, Research and Public Affairs - Quebec Division, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jean Michel Laurin, and I am Vice-President of Research and Public Affairs for the Quebec division of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express the views of the manufacturing and exporting community on the bill that is before you.

I'm pleased to be accompanied by Mr. Robert Hattin, President of Edson Packaging Machinery Ltd., an Ontario manufacturing firm, and he's one of our active members.

Before continuing, I wish to say a few words about our organization. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters is the nation's largest trade and industry association. We have members in all ten Canadian provinces. We represent all sectors and sub-sectors of Canada's manufacturing and exporting communities, including equipment manufacturers, such as the one represented by my fellow panellist, in addition to businesses from other industrial sectors.

In Canada, the industrial sector creates 2 million jobs. This may represent 17% of our GDP, but amounts to two thirds of all exports. Two thirds of all Canadian exported goods are manufactured here. The export sector is currently facing significant challenges, but remains very important and constitutes Canada's economic engine.

We are here today because we're opposed to Bill C-257, notably because of the impacts it could have on Canada's exports and also because it prescribes a cure for which we don't see any ill.

Our members at CME depend on Canada's trade infrastructure to ship their products to their clients, to get the raw materials and the machinery they need, and to meet clients and suppliers inside and outside of Canada. The services provided by railway companies, trucking companies, ports, telecommunications service providers, and financial services providers are all essential for us. Without them, manufacturers simply can't operate their businesses, because these services are such an integral part of our operations.

I'll turn it over to Rob, who will explain in greater detail our specific concerns with this piece of legislation.

[John Winter, Vice-Chair, Coalition of BC Businesses]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. My name is John Winter, and I'm here to represent the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. I'm also the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

The B.C. chamber is one of 16 business associations that comprise the coalition, which has been acting on behalf of 50,000 or more small and medium-sized businesses since 1992. The coalition supports labour policies that will help foster a positive working relationship between employers and employees and a climate for economic growth and jobs. We are relieved the committee agreed to expand its consultation on this critical piece of proposed legislation.

We speak on this issue with some authority and some experience. As you may know, B.C. has a legislated ban on replacement workers, and has had it since 1993. Over that time, we have become quite familiar with the same myths and misinformation that proponents of Bill C-257 have been offering up. Chief among them is the erroneous assumption that a ban on replacement workers levels the playing field between labour and management.

Take, for example, a neighbourhood bakery in Vancouver and the relative leverage of the parties involved in a labour dispute. On the one hand, the striking employees have the ability to continue earning a livelihood by working elsewhere if they so choose, a scenario quite likely in today's hot economy and worker shortage. On the other hand, the bakery owner's ability to maintain his livelihood, without staff, is all but eliminated. Remarkably, it's against the law in B.C. for him to even hire family members to keep those ovens operating. All the owner can do is to carry on under the burden of an over-worked and over-stressed management, who are putting in extra hours and doing the job of multiple employees for the length of the strike, which could be months.

There is no sure outcome for that bakery owner. The striking employee is legally guaranteed his job when the strike is over, a principle that the coalition supports. The union is guaranteed the right to bring in replacement pickets to keep the pressure on for as long as it takes, but the employer has no ability to take action to keep that business afloat. His entire investment is at risk.

Meanwhile, loyal customers are taking their business elsewhere to avoid the strike. Fewer bakery goods are sold, and sales will drop. It will be an uphill and costly battle for the baker to win back lost business after the employees return to work—that is, if there is still a viable business to come back to.

Small businesses in British Columbia know they have little choice about whether or not to endure a strike. They simply cannot do so. The options a small-business owner faces in this so-called level playing field are essentially three: to shut down; to give in to union demands to avoid a strike that it knows it cannot withstand; or thirdly, in the event of a strike, to seek a quick settlement rather than a settlement that serves the long-term viability of the enterprise and the jobs it supports.

In British Columbia, it is no wonder that owners of many small and medium-sized businesses likened the ban on replacement workers to a gun pointed at the heads of employers.

In the coalition's view, the ban on replacement workers tilts bargaining power excessively toward unions and undercuts the effectiveness of the negotiation process. It is that fundamental imbalance that explains why opposition of B.C.'s employer community to the replacement-worker ban remains undiminished 13 years after it was introduced.

As my colleagues from the B.C. Business Council have noted, this bill is more damaging than the B.C. legislation in several respects. Instead of restricting itself to banning replacement workers, Bill C-257 even prevents employers from attempting to operate their own business during a strike. For example, the owner of a small interprovincial trucking operation cannot even drive the truck himself during a strike. Bill C-257 prohibits him from engaging in any productive work to try to keep that business running.

The second point is that employees of the business are not permitted to disagree with their union and to cross the picket line to do the job during the strike. This is permitted in British Columbia, but would be outlawed under Bill C-257.

On December 7, the president of Teamsters Canada stated before this committee that Bill C-257 is about dignity and respect for workers. How does depriving Canadian employees of their fundamental right to dissent from their unions' decisions and choose to work further dignity and respect for workers? This is imposition of union solidarity through legislation.

The coalition wonders whether these provisions of Bill C-257 would be consistent with the freedom of association and the freedom of expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There can be no question that Bill C-257 is wholly inconsistent with another principal tenet of labour law; that is, the spillover effect of labour disputes between a particular employee and its union. Any spillover should be limited as much as possible to avoid harming third parties who are not involved in the labour dispute.

This bill applies to federally regulated companies that are vital to the national economy, such as transportation, telecommunications, and financial services. Granting organized labour the ability to shut these businesses entirely, through Bill C-257, would have a catastrophic domino effect extending far beyond the direct impact to federally regulated businesses.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are third parties to a labour dispute and have much to lose. How, you ask? Here are four examples: the manufacturer who depends on the railways to ensure just-in-time delivery of components to the factory; retailers and their customers who rely on the financial services sector to process millions of payments, transactions, every day; the small business that depends on Canada Post to deliver its goods to customers in a cost-effective manner and the customers who are depending upon the timely receipt of these goods; and the millions of businesses, including home offices, that depend on the services of telecommunications companies for their telephone, fax, and e-mail communications.

In the event of a federal labour strike the average Canadian small or medium-sized business does not have the ability to quickly adapt and find new suppliers, distribution networks, or communications service providers. The burden of Bill C-257 on these enterprises and the families and employees who run them is simply staggering.

The Coalition of B.C. Businesses supports the basic tenet that this committee has heard in previous testimony that laws should only be changed to address real and pressing problems. The onus is on the advocates of Bill C-257 to demonstrate that Canada has a problem to resolve with the use of replacement workers. They have failed to do so.

In the 20 years prior to the adoption of the Sims task force recommendations and the 1999 amendments to the code, the federal government had to enact emergency back-to-work legislation 17 times. Since then, there's not been a single instance when the federal government has had to impose a settlement through emergency legislation.

The Coalition of B.C. Businesses respectfully urges this committee to recommend to the House that this legislation be rejected, as Parliament has had the wisdom to do nine times previously.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

[Jason Koshman, General Counsel, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jason Koshman. I'm general counsel with the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association.

We wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before it on Bill C-257.

The BCMEA is a federally regulated not-for-profit employer association representing 70 member companies on Canada's west coast. All our member companies are involved in port operations and in shipping. The BCMEA is the labour relations and collective bargaining agent of west coast waterfront employers. Our partner and counterpart is the ILWU Canadian area. The union represents our valuable employees from as far north as Prince Rupert, British Columbia, to as far south as Delta, B.C., and ports in between, including those on Vancouver Island.

In appearing before the committee today, the BCMEA wishes to draw two important points to the committee's attention. The first is the Sims task force. In 1995 the federal Minister of Labour appointed a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of part I of the Canada Labour Code. Wide public consultation with federal employers, trade unions, academics and other interested parties took place over several months across every major centre in Canada. The task force took almost two years to complete its work and produced a report with recommendations on amendments to the Canada Labour Code. That report was entitled “Seeking a Balance”.

A very specific section of that task force's mandate was to examine the issue of the need for and possible scope of restrictions on the use of replacement workers. In short, the issue that is now the subject matter of Bill C-257 was thoroughly analyzed and reviewed by the task force. In chapter 9 of its report it described the issue as follows, and I am going to cite from the report itself:

No issue divides the submissions we received more than the issue of replacement workers. Labour was virtually unanimous in favouring a legislated prohibition on the use of replacement workers (a so-called "anti-scab" law). Management was equally unanimous in its opposition to such a proposal.

The task force carefully and thoroughly analyzed arguments for and against such a measure in the federal sector. Ultimately they concluded as follows, and I'll quote again:

Replacement workers can be necessary to sustain the economic viability of an enterprise in the face of a harsh economic climate and unacceptable union demands. It is important in a system of free collective bargaining that employers maintain that option, unrestrained by any blanket prohibition. If this option is removed, employers will begin to structure themselves to reduce their reliance on their permanent workforces for fear of vulnerability, to the detriment of both workers and employers alike.

and then,

Once the strike or lockout commences, we believe that it should be fought out on the bargaining issues, not on the question of representation. Replacement workers should only be prohibited where they are used for an illegitimate end. Our recommendation can achieve this while preserving the basic balance of collective bargaining.

The Sims recommendation on this very issue saw the enactment of subsection 94(2.1) under the current Canada Labour Code. It is our view and that of our members that Bill C-257 clearly undermines the significant consultative work of the task force and the resulting enactment of subsection 94(2.1).

Bill C-257 substantially amends the code and is far more draconian than existing B.C. replacement worker legislation. It is our view that balance was achieved with the enactment of subsection 94(2.1), and Bill C-257 threatens this balance. We believe that Bill C-257 pushes the pendulum too far. Moreover, it amends the current code just a few short years following the enactment of subsection 94(2.1), and it should be noted that since the subsection's enactment, Parliament has not on a single occasion had to enact legislation forcing a federal labour dispute to an end.

The second point the BCMEA wishes to draw to the committee's attention is the nature of Canada's federally regulated industries. Federal industries regulated by the code are infrastructure industries necessary for the economy of Canada and the well-being of all Canadians. The ability of federally regulated employers to operate and to sustain their economic viability is important to all Canadian businesses, not simply those under federal jurisdiction. A halt to the provision of port services, telecommunications, air travel, banking, or other federally regulated industries has profound effects on all of Canada. Indeed, Parliament has been forced to intervene in work stoppages in west coast ports on several occasions through back-to-work legislation, due to the negative effects on Canada's economy when trade stops moving through the west coast ports. Examples are the West Coast Ports Operations Act of 1972; the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1975; the grain handling operations acts of 1991; West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994; and the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995--and this list does not include legislation relating to national railways, which occurred in 1995.

We feel it important to note that a work stoppage at a unionized pulp mill, mine, or factory in the province of Quebec or the province of British Columbia, although detrimental, does not carry national ramifications to Canada's economy. A halt to port operations or national rail operations clearly does. Restrictions on the use of replacement workers for federally regulated industries must be seen in the context of this reality, one that the Sims task force clearly recognized when recommending enactment of what is now section 94(2.1).

In conclusion, the task force chaired by Andrew Sims thoroughly reviewed the issue of restrictions on the use of replacement workers in Canada's federal sector. Its recommendations were reasoned and thorough, following extensive and wide-reaching consultation and resulting in the enactment of section 94(2.1). Balance was achieved and has been maintained without Parliament having to end federal disputes since its enactment.

Bill C-257 is not provincial legislation affecting one local region. Canada's national industries regulated by the code are the lifeblood of the economy and essential to all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Doug Alley, Vice-President, Human Resources, Business Council of British Columbia]

Thank you.

Because B.C. passed replacement worker legislation a few years ago, I think it's important that you understand fully how this occurred.

When the NDP provincial government was elected in 1992, it did a full review of what was then the Industrial Relations Act through a special subcommittee consisting of one employer representative, one representative from the trade union movement, and a neutral chair. They agreed on 95% of the new labour code. There were four issues they did not agree on, one of them being replacement worker legislation.

The adviser for the employers recommended that nothing be done on replacement workers. The labour adviser recommended a limited ban on replacement workers. The neutral chair was in between, talking about a mechanism to settle a dispute where replacement workers were used.

What came about, however, was something far beyond what the committee even remotely recommended. The government at that time arbitrarily decided to incorporate restrictions on the use of replacement workers into the revised code. The employer community at the time did not support this and felt it tipped the balance of the labour code in favour of trade unions. We have never changed our position.

We do an annual member survey on labour and employment legislation, and the removal of the prohibition on the use of replacement workers tops the list every year. We will continue to press our provincial government to remove this provision from the B.C. code.

I want to talk briefly about what we have in B.C., versus what's proposed in Bill C-257. While employers in B.C. find the replacement worker legislation repugnant, what we find under Bill C-257 is even more draconian. Employees under the B.C. code can cross a picket line; they cannot do so under this. Employers can attempt to manage their businesses under the B.C. legislation; under Bill C-257, they cannot.

The only thing an employer can do is manage his business to avoid the destruction of his or her property, or for conservation matters. In other words, a struck employer would not be allowed to continue to produce goods or provide services, no matter what the consequences.

This will have a great effect not only on employers but on the public at large. We believe that the measures contained in Bill C-257 are extremely harsh and far exceed anything found in any jurisdiction in North America.

I don't have to tell you that Canada doesn't operate in a vacuum. Investors seek stability and familiarity. Generally investors prefer the same rules across jurisdictions. They are reluctant to invest dollars where jurisdictions differ.

In our submission to the Sims task force in 1995, we stated:

A legislated prohibition on the use of replacement workers would greatly increase regulatory disparities between Canada and the United States, and thus erode Canada's ability to compete and to attract new business investments.

We still believe that to this day.

We believe that there needs to be a balance in the labour code. We believe that Sims found this balance when he made his recommendations in the 1990s, and the Liberal government adopted them in 1999.

We believe that suddenly including a replacement worker provision in the Canada Labour Code will have negative effects on investment, and not only on employers but on their workers and communities. We do not want to see businesses structure themselves so that they could possibly leave our jurisdiction—that is in no one's best interest.

I would like to point out that HRSDC did a study. Proponents of the bill have argued that replacement worker legislation will shorten the duration of strikes. The HRSDC study, which was produced last year in October, proves the opposite.

As my colleague Mr. Lampert said, we believe that good labour and management relations involve valuable input from both sides. By this, in our view, the bill should not pass.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I do. I'm just going to read the motion. The chair made a decision to schedule six other meetings to hear about 35 witnesses. We've already heard from 34 individuals. I have a concern that we put forward a plan to make it clear that we are managing the time, that we provide adequate time for witnesses but we not allow this to be delayed and to be stalled. We also have to make sure there is time for technical or expert witnesses to appear, as well as the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Chair, I move that in relation to Bill C-257 this committee direct the clerk to ensure that the hours of the currently scheduled committee meetings are extended as necessary so that a technical briefing be held no later than February 1 and that all currently scheduled witnesses be heard by no later than February 7 and that a clause-by-clause reading of this bill be completed on February 8.

The intent of the motion is simply to manage our time. It provides for all currently scheduled witnesses to be heard. I think the implication of this is that for possibly two meetings we might need to extend the hours so we can hear a few more witnesses during that time slot.

I've noticed that at some of the meetings anywhere from three to five witnesses have been scheduled at a time. In many other committees a greater number of witnesses would be heard. We know the finance committee has scheduled about 16 witnesses in a two-hour period, so I feel what we're proposing is very reasonable to ensure that we can get to the technical briefing we need prior to finishing with the witnesses, just in case issues arise out of that. Then clause-by-clause would be completed by February 8, and if we need to go later into the evening on that day that would not be a problem.

So I'd like to move that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), the committee will now continue to hear witnesses on its study of the bill.

Before we get started, we have a somewhat different makeup to our committee from what we had before we broke at Christmastime. I welcome all the new Liberals who have new critics roles. Thank you for being here.

Ms. Davies, on a point of order.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain again to this House that the federal government has responsibility for sectors that are vital to the smooth running of the country: rail, marine and air transportation and telecommunications.

We also have other services, and hon. members should know that Bill C-257 would no longer allow the use of replacement workers. Any subgroup within any one of these sectors could completely paralyze the country's economy.

[Yvon Moreau, President, Abitibi-Temiscamingue Communications, Centrale des syndicats nationaux]

Absolutely. Over 22 months, almost 800 days, 800 sunrises and sunsets for 60 people, their spouses and their children. Obviously, I am not a politician. In every day life, I am a journalist in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region which, as you know, is still going through a major economic crisis.

I was listening to Mr. Kelly-Gagnon from the Conseil du patronat and I listen to the people from the Bloc Québebois and the Liberal Party. What I have been hearing since I got here this morning makes me think of a labour management dispute. Although I am the president of the union where I work, I do not want to refer to Bill C-257 as a bill that could be the object of a future labour management dispute. I want to refer to Bill C-257 as a way of harmonizing labour management relations, because for 800 days, my colleagues and I were on strike, and for 800 days, my managers had economic difficulties because of that labour dispute. Today, I have to tell you that federal replacement worker legislation would shorten labour disputes in Canada and at federally regulated companies. Let replacement workers replace people who want to settle a labour management dispute... The word “replacement” says it all. I lived through this situation for 800 days. Replacement workers are not skilled workers who have learned a trade day after day. Whether it is pilots, letter carriers, journalists or cameramen, replacement workers are people who show up without preparation to do a job that is usually done by people who know what they are doing.

So when you say replacement worker legislation will be harmful to the economy, let it be known that the disasters you anticipate, should conservatives, liberals, bloc and NDP vote in favour of this bill, won't come to pass, but the legislation will avoid the kind of tragedy we experienced in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Radio Nord Communications—and my managers are not here, but they admit this at our weekly labour relations meetings—lost, over the course of this dispute, $0.5 million. Had there been no replacement workers, we would have negotiated faster, settled faster and Radio Nord Communications would not have lost $0.5 million. And above all, two years after the dispute, my co-workers would not be asked to reduce their payroll by the equivalent of 300 hours per week to recover that $0.5 million.

So, the disaster the people from the Conseil du patronat and others anticipate, I have been through it, my 60 co-workers have been through it. So make sure it ends, because preventing management and labour from negotiating is silencing democracy. In my view, Canada, like all provinces of Canada, is a place where democracy rules. Let's make sure it continues to rule.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Someone said earlier, it was Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, that the leader of the Liberal Party had come out against Bill C-257.

Since we have media in the room, I want to make sure we're on the record. Mr. Dion wasn't there for the vote. He never said he would be against. As a matter of fact, he was in favour of Bill C-257 before he was leader. Now as leader he will have to take a stand, but he never ever said no to Bill C-257.

[Jim Facette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an honour for us to be here today to discuss this very important bill.

With me here today is one of those front-end experts that was discussed at your prior meeting. He is from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, the vice-president of human resources, Mr. Vito Lotito. We think it's so important that we've brought in some front-line people.

Canada's airports believe that you should be aware of the potential devastating impact this legislation could have on the airport community across Canada. If enacted, this bill could result in a shutdown of one or more of Canada's airports in the event of a strike.

The Canadian Airports Council is the national association of Canada's airports. Our 45 members include more than 150 airports, handling virtually all of the nation's air cargo and international passenger traffic, and 95% of domestic passenger traffic.

Our position today is supported by the Air Transport Association of Canada, which represents Canada's air carrier sector, an organization that was not granted a hearing by this committee. We hope it will be in the future.

Canada's airports are an essential component of the Canadian infrastructure for the communities they serve, and indeed for the nation. Canada's airports play a vital economic and social role. They also play an important part in the continued health and security of our nation: the military, medevac, search and rescue, and forest fire bombers all rely on airports as bases of operation. For northern and remote communities, airports are particularly important. For some communities, air service is the only link to the outside world.

To shut down an airport is to weaken our national transportation system. The Minister of Transport, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, is keenly aware of the critical role played by our airports. In October of this year, he told the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that we must ensure that federal policies and legislation continue to strengthen our national transportation system. Getting them right matters for competitiveness.

This bill, we submit, does not get it right. This bill jeopardizes Canada's competitiveness. Such is our concern about the implications of this bill that we wrote the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in November to advise the minister that if Bill C-257 becomes law, Canada's airports, in the event of a strike by certain occupational groups, likely would not be able to live up to regulated responsibilities under the terms of the Canadian aviation regulations. We must live up to them. We do not have a choice. But it is our opinion, and the opinion of our legal counsel, that airports in Canada will not be able to do so if Bill C-257 is enacted.

Let me give you just a few examples to illustrate the severity of our concerns. If aircraft fuellers strike, then aircraft will not fly. If aircraft de-icers strike, then aircraft will not fly in the winter months. If baggage and cargo handlers strike, then people and products won't be loaded and unloaded. With no passengers, no baggage, and no cargo, aircraft will not fly. If ground handling personnel strike, aircraft cannot be safely moved on the tarmac. Again, aircraft will not fly. If airport security personnel strike, facility security may be compromised and airport operations will be curtailed or will cease. If pre-board security screeners strike, then nobody flies.

Some may say that existing essential service protection, called maintenance of activities in subsection 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, will ensure that these critical services continue to be provided during a strike or lockout. We do not agree. Regrettably, 87.4 has proven to be inadequate. Canada's aviation sector has not been well served by the current maintenance of activities provisions.

For example, aviation sector employers and unions alike have been anxiously awaiting, for almost six years, a final decision from the Canada Industrial Relations Board concerning air traffic control and related services provided by Nav Canada. If to this inadequate essential service protection you add a ban on the use of replacement workers, you will have a recipe for airport chaos in the event of a strike.

Given the essential role Canada's airports play in the functioning of our country, we anticipate that emergency back-to-work legislation will once again be the order of the day. Prior to the 1999 amendments to the Canada Labour Code, the federal government had to enact emergency back-to-work legislation on 17 occasions. Since the 1999 amendments, there hasn't been a single incident during which the federal government has had to legislate an end to a strike or lockout. This is the best evidence of a balanced labour code serving the interests of all parties: labour, management, government, and, most importantly, the people of Canada. We urge you not to upset this delicate balance.

You have been bombarded with conflicting statistics for and against the ban on replacement workers. We wish to add some views to this debate.

First, let me say that we respect the expertise and neutrality of the federal public servants who prepared the report entitled Key Observations Regarding the Effect of Replacement Workers Legislation on Workers this year. That document makes a number of very important statements, which we urge you to consider carefully as you consider this proposal to ban the use of replacement workers. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages, it says. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation will result in shorter duration of work stoppages. It also states that there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work days lost.

Apparently the policy experts at the federal Department of Labour do not agree with organized labour's assertions that replacement workers lengthen or increase the number of strikes. If you have not already done so, we urge you to read the federal Department of Labour's report.

We too have some telling statistics to share with the committee and parliamentarians. We represent 150 airports, each with at least one collective agreement that is renegotiated about every three years. This means that in the last ten years there have been at least 450 collective agreements renegotiated by airports and their unions across Canada. Put another way, that is at least 450 instances where a strike or lockout could have occurred. I am happy to report that there have been fewer than five airport labour disruptions in that time. The system is balanced. We urge you not to disrupt this delicate balance by dramatically and unfairly increasing the balance of power.

Canada does not need Bill C-257. There has been a restriction on the use of replacement workers for almost seven years, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board has yet to issue a single decision in circumstances where an employer has actually used replacement workers. Laws should only be changed to fix problems. There is simply no problem to fix.

In conclusion, Canada's airports are very concerned about Bill C-257 because it could result in the shutdown of one or more of Canada's airports in the event of a strike. Because of the vital role airports play in our communities and the nation, we hope this committee will not let that happen. This bill is not needed.

As we articulated earlier, our position is supported by Canada's air carrier sector. This bill would damage Canada's airports, the communities we serve, and the economy as a whole. Federal law must strengthen, not weaken, Canada's transportation and economic infrastructure.

Monsieur le président, merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

Our witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning, one round of seven minutes and a second one of five minutes. I will do my best to keep my eye on the clock, although when you have MPs asking questions, anything can happen. We try to keep everyone within the timeframe.

I also want to remind everybody that all questions should be put through me, the chair. We'll start with Mr. Roy.

[Michael McDermott, Former Senior Deputy Minister, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources Development , As an Individual]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thanks for allowing me to appear before you this morning.

I'm here as an individual, but in a previous life I had much to do with labour administration and the development of labour relations policy and legislation. I should make it clear at the outset that I do not intend to take a position on the inclusion of replacement worker provisions in the code, as proposed in Bill C-257.

[Deborah Bourque, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers]

Thank you.

I'm Deborah Bourque. I'm the national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. On behalf of our 54,000 members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-257. For your information, the majority of our members work at Canada Post. We represent some private sector bargaining units, some under the federal legislation and some under provincial legislation, but the vast majority of our members work for Canada Post and they are federally regulated.

CUPW members have seen our major employer, Canada Post, use scabs during strikes in 1987 and 1991. So we know first-hand how the use of scabs can cause suffering, can divide communities, can make strikes longer, and can cause violence on picket lines. I know this committee has already heard example after example, from the Canadian Labour Congress and others, of similar experiences.

I want to say that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers wholeheartedly supports the submission made by the Canadian Labour Congress yesterday.

On the other hand, there are many clear examples of the benefits of anti-scab legislation, and I'm sure you've heard some of those as well. I will underscore some of those examples. Provincially, Quebec outlawed the use of scabs in 1977, and the average number of days of work lost to labour disputes dropped. British Columbia ended the use of scabs in 1993 and experienced a 50% drop in the amount of work time lost to strikes and lockouts the following year.

I think it is ironic that the major strikes in Quebec and British Columbia that most rankled workplaces were TELUS and Vidéotron, and both fell under the Canada Labour Code rather than the provincial code.

Internationally, we have examples of anti-scab legislation in Germany, France, and Italy, as well as in northern Europe. Research done by Labour Canada, Statistics Canada, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board shows that anti-scab regulation, where it exists in Canada, has not disrupted the workplace balance, led to increased work stoppages, or brought unrealistic pay demands from union negotiators.

I note that our own employer, Canada Post, was a signatory to the full-page spread in The Hill Times this Monday lobbying you to dismantle this bill. I shouldn't be surprised, given Canada Post's choice of confrontation over negotiation and their use of scabs during our 1987 and 1991 strikes. I am, however, shocked that Canada Post didn't learn from those bitter experiences, which included violence. Certainly, the mail was not delivered and processed during that time. It was simply a confrontation. It was simply an attempt to break the union and to undermine our collective bargaining. It resulted in mass firings of folks who were reinstated later at arbitration, and it also had a serious impact on the future of labour relations in the post office, not to mention the exploitation of unemployed and largely immigrant workers who were forced to work as scabs.

The executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Garth Whyte, says that this bill will make Canada less competitive and that it threatens the survival of small businesses that rely on federally regulated services like Canada Post.

I want to say that the CFIB has a history of exaggerating the impact of postal strikes on their members.

In 1981 the CFIB stated publicly that our strike caused 3,000 bankruptcies. Statistics provided by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy proved that statement to be completely false, and in fact, revealed that the strike had no significant impact on business bankruptcies. In 2002, Mr. Whyte told Direct Marketing News that they had a 15,000-member survey in which respondents claimed, with no back-up, that the postal strike directly or indirectly impacted their business, and concluded that the 1997 strike was costing small business $300 million a day. I note that in recent op-eds and open letters he's saying it cost them $200 million a day. In July 2003, even about a threatened strike that didn't happen, Mr. Whyte said, “This postal strike has the potential of being SARS and BSE combined to our membership.” This is an absolutely outrageous prediction.

This committee should seriously examine the record of the CFIB in terms of its statements concerning postal strikes.

I want to point out, as well, that Canada Post is not an essential service. I would argue that it's an incredibly important service to the population and communities and business all across Canada and Quebec, but it's not an essential service.

I just want to speak briefly about the notion of essential services. Unions negotiate essential services with their employers, because they understand the importance of the work they do. This legislation should not impact on that. There's a large difference between folks providing essential services and scabs. Members that provide essential services are not even close to scabs—so that can be rectified very easily. We support essential services.

CUPW also understands that postal strikes have an impact on postal users, and we've tried to minimize that impact on the most vulnerable groups, such as seniors and low-income people. Our members actually deliver cheques during our postal strikes. The union meets for months with Canada Post before potential strikes to ensure those cheques are processed and delivered by our members in spite of any labour dispute we have with our employer—and we've been doing that since 1981.

In closing, I'd like to say that CUPW members support this bill because we've had direct experience with replacement workers and because we know that the use of scabs seriously undermines free collective bargaining and any notion of balance of power within labour relations.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the members of Parliament who have supported this legislation and fought for it for years, and the many activists, as well, who have worked so hard lobbying, gathering signatures, and mobilizing support for this legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this brief statement. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257. The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes.

Each group of witnesses we have before us will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second round of five minutes. I will do my best to keep my eye on the clock.

I would like to remind everybody the questions should come through me, the chair, as I realize that all groups feel fairly passionate about this issue in one way or the other.

Deborah, perhaps you could start. We'll give you seven minutes. Thank you very much for being here today.

[Glenn O'Farrell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Mr.Chairman Allison and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you this morning.

My name is Glenn O'Farrell. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. With me this morning is my colleague Elizabeth Roscoe, who is the Senior Vice-President for Policy and Public Affairs.

We would like to thank you in particular because this debate, which we are having with our colleagues who are also before you this morning, is an important one. Indeed, we acknowledged the wisdom of having this type of panel so that you can hear the points of view of all parties, although they are not necessarily all the same. But the purpose of bringing everyone together is that any piece of legislation should be well-thought-out, and any draft amendment should be well considered. I would like to insist on this, as did Mr. Coderre a little earlier.

What we will say to you this morning is from that angle and in that context.

The CAB represents the vast majority of Canada's private broadcasters; we're talking about private radio, private television, pay, and specialty networks. While we may not look it, we have been around for 80 years. We are celebrating our 80th anniversary. The CAB was founded in 1926 around the concept that broadcasters needed a common voice on issues where it was in their interests to bring together a voice of cohesion, and that's what we're going to try to do here this morning.

We are deeply concerned with the potential impact of this proposed legislation, which we think could destabilize the balance in labour relations in the broadcasting sector, and for that matter in all federally regulated industries.

Moreover, we come to you this morning to respectfully submit the view that the equation to be balanced here does not consist only of the private interests of employers and employees. Rather, the balance we suggest you must consider here consists not of two but of three interrelated components: the legitimate interests of employees; the legitimate interests of employers; and also the legitimate interest of the public, and therefore the public interest.

The reason that broadcasters take this particular view, and to a certain degree feel entitled to respectfully submit this three-part equation, is because it falls perfectly consistent with the legislative framework under which we operate and which governs broadcasters across the country, by way of the licensing scheme that exists under the CRTC.

In this view, public service to communities is a central and legislatively mandated reality for every radio and television station in the country. As the honourable members of this committee know, the CRTC licence regulations and conditions for individual licensees require Canadian radio and television stations—and I'm just going to summarize—to perform public service functions consistent with the Broadcasting Act, to satisfy broadcasting public policy obligations, and to be accountable to regulatory review, all in the ordinary course of business. Hence, from a broadcaster's perspective, the equation to balance in conducting its operations always includes a public interest component.

As federally regulated companies, we are concerned that if Bill C-257 were to be adopted and a work stoppage were to occur at a CAB member company, the provisions of Bill C-257 would negatively impact its ability to provide its service to audiences—listeners and viewers—who depend on and tune into Canadian broadcasters every day.

We believe that the Canada Labour Code, as it is currently worded, forms a suitable compromise that gives employers the flexibility to fulfill their operating responsibilities, while preventing them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. This compromise has achieved balance in the interests of all parties.

Broadcasters respectfully submit, as others who have appeared before this committee, that this proposed legislation would have a destabilizing effect on broadcasting company operations across the country. This would have a direct impact on broadcasters' abilities to continue providing regulated programming services during a strike or a work stoppage.

Many broadcasting companies operate with a majority of their staff in union positions. In such cases, only a small number of non-union staff are considered management or administrative. While the situation certainly varies among broadcasting companies, non-union employees, who are not considered part of the management level, carry out responsibilities for sales, advertising, administration, clerical, and maintenance functions. These non-union, non-management employees are not involved in the operational areas of the broadcasting organization.

In the interest of time, let me just fast forward to a few examples of where, had Bill C-257 been in effect, significant concerns, the ones that we address here today, may have given rise to a public interest liability or casualty.

We all remember the ice storm, where radio stations operated and television operations were able to continue in certain instances on little, if no, power, and in some instances on none at all. In those events, the public, but also the emergency service providers, relied on the broadcasters to maintain communication and contact with the public to provide them with essential information.

We can think, of course, of the very unfortunate and tragic situation not too long ago in Montreal, at Dawson College, where the unfortunate events of that day were not aided and abetted by the fact that broadcasters were on the air, but certainly the dissemination of information to interested parties--coming from emergency services, amongst others--and to interested audiences was provided through the access they had to information. If Bill C-257, as it currently stands, had been introduced, unfortunately, in our opinion, it would have compromised that, if not to say made that impossible.

Hence, we wish to conclude our remarks by this suggestion.

As we said at the very beginning, any piece of legislation should be well-thought-out and any draft amendment should be well considered.

We understand and respect points of view which are opposite to ours on this issue. However, we remain convinced that improving a situation which is perhaps not ideal should not be achieved by passing a bill quickly and at the last minute, because, in our opinion, we are not dealing with a crisis or a national emergency. The services which depend on these undertakings, such as broadcasting, are part of our national, economic and social makeup, which is so important to all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[David Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Dave Coles. I am the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. With me is my confrere, Gaetan Ménard, who is the secretary-treasurer of CEP.

I'd like to take a second to thank the panel for giving us the time to appear before you. It's a very serious matter. I would also like to apologize to the interpreter, because we have modified our presentation somewhat from the one we e-mailed.

For those of you who do not know, I'd like to spend just a few minutes telling you a bit about our union. We have 150,000 members from coast to coast to coast. While the majority of our members work in industries that fall under various provincial jurisdictions, some 45,000 of our members do work under the federal code: broadcasting, telecommunications, and trucking--those that fall under the federal code. Some gas and pipelines that cross interprovincial boundaries are also federally regulated. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, we have a very keen interest in the important work you are doing.

I am sure it will not surprise you to know that our union supports the enactment of Bill C-257 in its present form. We think it presents a balance of all the varying and various interests involved in labour relations and collective bargaining. I want to talk a bit about the balance and my own personal experience.

I am from the west. I come from British Columbia, and I spent a good deal of my working life in Alberta at a time when neither jurisdiction had legislation limiting the use of replacement workers. In my experience, the workers who paid the greatest price in that era were those who had the least power and control in their lives. There are a number of examples, but I'll keep it short because of the time delays.

At the Gainers food processing plant in Alberta and at Purdy's Chocolates in B.C., which we represented, it was largely women, new Canadians, and single parents on the picket line. Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you first-hand that the Gainers strike lasted months longer than it should have and had excessive violence, while the Purdy's dispute was shorter, with no violence, because Alberta allowed the use of replacement workers while B.C. did not. With Bill C-257, those vulnerable workers in Alberta would not have fallen victim to the imbalance injected into the bargaining process by the importation of strikebreakers. The economic price paid by both sides during those disputes would have been equal, and those employers would have had a much greater incentive to settle.

In 1993, B.C. enacted legislation similar to Bill C-257, and since then, not only has the number of disputes declined by 50%, but so has the number of days lost to strikes and lockouts. Compare that, ladies and gentlemen, to some of the most recent disputes in the federal jurisdiction. Aliant telephone company, which we represent in Atlantic Canada, used replacement workers to extend our strike to more than five months. Telus, which paid people huge bonuses to cross the picket line last year, kept their workers on a lockout for more than four months. That is exactly what I mean when I say that Bill C-257 will inject balance into the bargaining.

At this time, I would like to turn the microphone over to my confrere, Gaetan Ménard, to give you his presentation of what is happening in Quebec.

[Cliff Mackay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, let me express, on behalf of my members, our appreciation for this motion that you just dealt with. It has been a matter of quite some concern with our members that more time was needed, but let me now turn to my remarks.

The Railway Association of Canada represents virtually all railways operating in Canada, most of which are federally regulated, including the large class 1 CN and CPR railways, short-line and regional railways, intercity passenger and commuter rail services, and tourist railways. As its CEO, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-257. My remarks will focus on the overall implications of the proposed legislation for the rail industry, and more generally, for the Canadian economy. I am not a labour expert, so I will leave those considerations to others.

In a nutshell, the RAC is strongly opposed to the adoption of this legislation.

Since Confederation, Canadian legislators have identified some economic sectors as being so strategic to the future of the country that they had to be federally regulated. Canada's railways were a part of this group from the very beginning. The railway industry was not only an integral part of the creation of the country, but it was also recognized as a critical infrastructure that would bind the country together and make a major contribution to growth and our well-being. This link between the railways and Canada's prosperity is even more important today. The rail sector, which physically links most of the regions of the country, moves goods and people throughout the country, but it also connects us to our major ports and to our major trading partner south of the border.

Canada's railways move almost 65% of all of the goods shipped by surface in Canada. They are by far the largest transportation service provider for our exports and imports. As you all know, Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity depends on our ability to compete internationally and to thrive in an increasingly global market.

The legislation you have before you, we believe, would have a major negative impact on Canada's competitiveness through worsening the ability of our railways to provide stable, safe, secure, and highly competitive transportation services.

Our major concerns are as follows. In the competitive area, Canada is vigorously competing for a greater share of world trade. This is critical to our future prosperity. The railway industry is a major part of that competition. One example I would point out to you is our efforts through the Pacific gateway program. We are competing with the U.S. and Mexico for a greater share of Asia-Pacific trade. Labour stability is a critical part of that equation. In fact, this matter is raised on many occasions by Asian shippers as a concern in evaluating the Canadian option. This legislation will clearly shift the labour-management balance and increase uncertainty and the probability of labour disruptions, in our view. This will hurt our ability to compete in this growing market. I could list other examples such as the critical importance of stable rail services to small centres in central Canada that rely on railways to ship such products as forest products to Europe and the U.S. The consequences of destabilizing these efforts are profound and they need careful study.

One point with regard to the difference.... I made a number of mentions about other jurisdictions regulating provincially regulated industries in this way. I would make the following point. Federally regulated industries are enablers to the Canadian economy and they need to be looked at in that context. A disruption in a major part of those industries has profound and very far-reaching and immediate effects on the Canadian economy.

Let me now speak to local or regional impacts. It's not widely known, but Canada's railway industry is made up of a large number, over 40, of short-line and regional railways that serve local markets and connect these communities to the broader national and international network.

Again, disruptions in rail service could have a profound local effect. For example, we move almost all of the dangerous goods in the country because we are by far the safest surface mode of transportation. It doesn't take much to think of the consequences of a disruption of chlorine supplies, for example, for local water supplies or a disruption of the movement of manufactured autos out of the many plants in southern Ontario to the U.S. market.

When we consulted our members on this, there were a number of concerns, but one is particularly noteworthy. Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. is a small, native-owned short-line railway that operates, in Labrador and northern Quebec, both a passenger and freight rail service to the remote community of Schefferville. Obviously, a disruption in their service would isolate this community from surface transportation, but also this railway provides transportation services to well over 200 native trappers and hunters who use the railway to get to and from their traplines and hunting grounds for their livelihood.

Bill C-257 will create the situation where, if there is a labour conflict, it will go beyond freight transportation. In our view, it will impact commuter trains in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, and it could easily have a domino effect on a number of other employees.

The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chair, is that clearly this legislation raises the risk of many unintended consequences that deserve more study.

With regard to Canada's reputation, Canada is struggling with a major productivity problem at the moment. Many experts have commented on this. Our question is whether we can afford to increase the probability of further disruptions in our exports, which amount to 40% of our GNP. I would kindly take the point of view that we cannot.

In fact, in the last major rail labour conflict that took place in this country that resulted in a strike or lockout, legislators at the time recognized the strategic importance of rail. An act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services passed the following requirements for arbitrators, that they be

guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term, taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations.

In our view, that clearly indicates that legislators saw the strategic need for careful consideration. As well, some studies that have been made available to the committee, dated October 2006, clearly indicate that the effectiveness of this proposed legislation is in question.

Let me just finish, Mr. Chair, by pointing out that we believe the committee would benefit from the appearance of a number of experts. Again, I'm not an expert, but I have been advised that there are a number of issues in this legislation that really do require expert advice. We would strongly recommend that the committee avail themselves of that advice. I can tell you that both CN and CPR have indicated to me that they would be more than willing to provide technical expert advice on some of the labour relations issues here from their perspective.

Let me just close, Mr. Chair, by saying that the Canadian rail industry believes in sound, stable, and respectful labour management relations. We believe a stable and productive labour environment is critical to the interests of all Canadians, and we're committed to that goal. In our view, this legislation will not further that objective but will destabilize the labour management environment and lead to further disruptions.

Thank you.

[Marc Toupin, Procedural Clerk]

Mr. Chair, what I can say is that normally, whenever there is amending legislation before a committee, the committee is bound by the terms of reference of that bill. So it would be improper for a committee to go back to sections of the parent act that are not being amended by Bill C-257.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations, and there will be two rounds of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second one of five minutes.

I can assure you that I will be better with the time today. Things got away from us a little bit yesterday. I'm going to have to try to keep you to seven minutes. I apologize for that. I will keep an eye on the clock so that we can get through this agenda. I also want to remind everyone that all questions should be put through the chair.

Mr. Lake.

Statements by Members

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, during statements by members, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert said that the 911 service is not linked in any way to federal government jurisdiction.

We know that currently in Parliament, in the standing committee in particular, we are considering Bill C-257, commonly referred to as the anti-scab bill.

This bill is extremely important, since it would destroy the balance with respect to Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the use of replacement workers. If that is done, it should not be done with the intention of undermining union representation.

Yesterday, in the standing committee, I also reminded the committee members that the federal government is involved in vital jurisdictions in Canada, among others, in transportation: air transport, rail transport, sea transport, and also in matters of banking and telecommunications. As far as telecommunications are concerned, this covers all the services offered throughout the—

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we should always listen to people when they say they don't have time to express their views. We can make mistakes in life, but we do have the responsibility of taking what has been done into account. For example, over the past ten years, year in, year out, this bill was tabled and discussed over months, not weeks. In May, it was examined at first reading. We hear a great deal of testimony outside the sessions. We now have a framework to receive you. We thank you for being here today. You tell us that we might have to hear other witnesses. We will debate that issue.

As our colleagues said, we will soon have to make recommendations to the House of Commons. Those recommendations must reflect how things really are. I must point out that the debate started off quite badly when you told us that, if we were on the side of businesses, we would not be voting for Bill C-257. It's like when Mr. Bush told representatives of other countries that if they were not with him they were against him. That is the kind of message we received.

I think that everyone here—except the Minister—came before the committee with the intention of making relevant remarks. We cannot always all agree, and you have expressed your views extremely well, including your comments about Georges. You said that he and his friends as well as others and many businesses are worried. What I would like to know is what they are worried about, and whether Georges' company's is unionized. If it is not, there would be no strike. You say there are other people like Georges in many companies. Small businesses generate $900 million per day in the Canadian economy. For those $900 million to be in jeopardy, those people would all have to be unionized, and all be out on strike.

In small businesses which do have an employer and a union, needs are determined in terms of essential services. On that score, I would agree with you again. At the same time, I'm trying to respond to your concerns. For example, if Georges is delivering food in the Far North and is the only person to do so, then we and the union would consider that an essential service. However, if the client consists of a group of friends having a party and wanting to go hunt caribou, we would conclude this was not an essential service. Perhaps some other company may provide the service. We would have to see. Those things are done in a civilized fashion, we don't just go out and do things any old way, without even thinking about it.

You say that people are worried. To reassure you, I would like to draw your attention to Quebec's experience of 29 years and British Columbia's experience of 14 years. Both provinces, including the small businesses there, are not concerned about the experience. They are not waging a campaign to change the way things are. You say that you have no evidence. But doesn't their experience constitute evidence that labour relations can indeed be harmonized.

[Garth Whyte, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to introduce my colleague, Corinne Pohlmann, who's our director of national affairs. She'll be helping with the questions and answers.

I want to talk about George. George is a CFIB member who owns a small regional airline that services northern communities. He's not nearly as big as Air Canada or WestJet, but his service is critical to the northern communities he services. His small planes bring supplies and offers travel connections among those communities that the big airlines don't serve. During part of the year, his services are the only link between those northern communities and the outside world. George has a union workforce. He knows each employee. He is an important employer in his community and he is federally regulated. George's company has never experienced a strike--yet.

I want to ask this committee to consider this question. How does Bill C-257, which restricts replacement workers, help George and his northern airline? How will this legislation impact on thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in sectors such as trucking, communications, and airlines that, like George, are important to their community and are federally regulated?

We've heard from powerful union leaders that their members need protection from big, federally regulated companies. What protection do smaller employers like George's company have from powerful, big unions? What protection do his employees have who may disagree with the strike action supported by a big union based out of Toronto or Montreal? Big unions claim they need this legislation to protect themselves from big business, but who will stand up and protect small business from big unions?

Actually, this bill is double jeopardy for smaller business employers like George. His business will be hit directly if there's a strike, and it can be hurt indirectly by a strike or a lockout between a major, federally regulated business and a big union. That provides an important service to his business, and his business depends on it. Big businesses have the ability to survive a strike that would shut down ports, trucking, railways, or the postal service, but it is small businesses that risk being put out of business when these services grind to a halt.

The impact of this bill will hurt small employers across the country. Without replacement workers, the farmer who relies on exports will not ship grain. Small retailers who rely on imports will have empty shelves, and products will not reach the customer through distribution networks like Canada Post.

When asked about whether replacement workers should be restricted in federally regulated businesses, 84% of the 10,000 small business respondents said no. I'd like some other people to bring some hard evidence. I've heard anecdotes. That's what our membership is saying.

This bill has made our members angry and afraid. Our members remember when the port of Vancouver was shut down. The grain shipments and exports were tied up for weeks. The cost to B.C. business was over $75 million per day, but the impact was felt across Canada. Our members remember the Canada Post strike in 1999, when a small business, on average, lost $240 per day in higher delivery costs, lost sales, and delayed payments. It doesn't sound like a lot; however, the losses translated to more than $200 million per day within Canada's small and medium-sized business community.

The Liberal government was forced to legislate CUPW employees back to work. Is that the goal of this bill, to force governments to legislate union workers back to work? Even the threat of this happening can have serious long-term impacts on business growth, job creation, and economic development. How does this bill improve Canada's competitiveness?

All four federal parties have recognized the importance of small business to job creation, to their local communities, and to Canada's overall economic success. During the past two elections, all federal parties--the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals, and the Conservatives--endorsed policies that would help small business grow and create jobs. Why? Because they know that small and medium-sized enterprises account for 60% of total employment and 45% of the GDP. They know that small and medium-sized enterprises are important to the communities in their constituencies.

Canadians trust small and medium-sized enterprises to create the jobs. I've distributed some information that shows that. I can give you other items. They don't trust unions or big business to create the jobs. In fact, Canadians' preference is to work in or own a small business, not to work in government or in big business. Times have changed.

All four parties have told us it's good policy and good politics to encourage small and medium-sized business growth and job creation. All of you have told us that. That is why we don't understand Bill C-257. It's bad policy and it's bad politics.

Why is it bad policy? A very recent Human Resources and Social Development Canada study came out--October 24, 2006--and they observed many things. One thing they observed is that there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. They say there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation results in shorter duration of work stoppages. It also says that several academic studies on the impact of replacement worker legislation have concluded that a legislative ban on replacement workers is associated with more frequent and longer strikes. That's not just their study; it's several academic studies.

Is this the goal of this legislation--more frequent and longer strikes? Even if I'm wrong, shouldn't you take the time to make sure it's right? If this is such important legislation, then why is this committee and a minority government trying to quickly ram this legislation through the House?

This committee spent several months hearing witnesses in locations across the country to discuss job creation. Why is this committee restricting the number of witnesses and spending only two days to discuss legislation that we feel will be devastating to small business and Canada's competitiveness? Why was the B.C. business council turned down? Why can't they present and talk about the B.C. example? Why not take the time to get it right?

As employers and employees, we worked for several years along with government to improve parts I and II of the Canada Labour Code. We spent almost two years working on part III of the Canada Labour Code. The goal was to modernize the code to reflect the new economy.

This bill changes part I of the Canada Labour Code over a few months with very little input from employers, who will be significantly impacted by this bill. This is bad politics.

You have before you a letter that we've distributed, that we sent to every one of you--personalized, to every member of Parliament--on behalf of our 105,000 small business owners, informing MPs of the impacts of this legislation on small business in their communities. This is not just a big union, big business issue. This bill will have a significant impact on our members and on small business in your constituency. This bill will no longer quietly sneak through the House of Commons.

We do not have the financial resources that the CLC, the CAW, CUPW, or CUPE have at their disposal. We can't mount a massive lobbying campaign and ridings on the Hill like the CLC did, with 150 union activists blitzing MPs over a three-day period before you voted on the bill. However, we do have 105,000 small business owners as members, and we do make 4,500 small business visits every week. We will be watching each MP and how you vote, informing our small business owners in your riding how you vote on this bill.

You can't have it both ways by saying you support small business and then supporting this union-sponsored bill. Our members and small business owners across the country will be watching not only how you vote, but also whether or not you give the time for meaningful and serious debate on this legislation.

George and our members will be watching very closely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257. This meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. I appreciate everyone's patience. We've been a little late this morning.

The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations. There will be two rounds of questioning. There will be one round of seven minutes, followed by an additional round of five minutes.

I want to remind everyone to put all their questions through me as the chair. I'm going to start with Mr. Anders.

[Hassan Yussuff]

In regard to the current Canada Labour Code, part I, currently section 87.4 deals with essential service provision. There are two important criteria in order to get a designation as an essential service. One, of course, is public health and safety. It's not an ambiguous definition; it's a very clear definition.

In the context of Bill C-257, we're making the argument that the bill should be compatible with essential service provision. It is there for a reason. It establishes the fact that you need to have it there, and we think they should be compatible.

We don't think there's a conflict, but again, the committee can get some legal interpretation if there's a conflict. We should err on the side of caution, of course, and ensure that section 87.4 is not compromised as a result of this bill.

In addition to that, Bill C-257 added a provision that is not currently in the Canada Labour Code, part I. It is that if there is a dispute, replacement workers would not be able to cross the picket line.

It also provides for management to continue to perform their responsibilities in the context of the workplace, and I think that's an added provision. We think it's critical that the bill comply with section 87.4.

In every instance in which our affiliates have had to go before the board to deal with the elements of essential services or, more importantly, when the employer has raised it as a concern, they have actually worked it out and reached an agreement that has satisfied both parties, and when they couldn't have done so, they've gone before the board. We've always seen the board jurisdiction in dealing with this as adequate and fair. It's their job to determine whether the parties making the representation that it should be declared an essential service actually have a legitimate argument as defined under the current law.

We have always felt the board is balanced and fair, so if the parties can't resolve it, I think legitimately it should be the board that makes that designation at the end of the day. We think it's an essential part of the changes that should be applied to Bill C-257.

[Hassan Yussuff]

These include prolonged and more bitter labour conflicts, more strikes and lockouts, increased picket-line confrontations and violence, less free and meaningful collective bargaining, problems that render resolution of the dispute more difficult.

The CLC and other trade unions have been working for years to bring balance and fairness into federal industrial relations by advocating a ban on replacement workers. We have, unfortunately, witnessed bitter disputes at Vidéotron in Quebec, Telus in B.C. and Alberta, Sécur in Quebec, Giant Mine up in the Northwest Territories, and of course, most recently, which my colleague Patty Ducharme will be speaking of, Ekati.

What is clear about all these disputes is that when workers are put in desperate situations by irresponsible employers, dangerous situations are almost assured. It is the role of government to avoid such scenarios by ensuring an even playing field between labour and management. This is a view most employers in the federal sector can also appreciate.

Ten years ago, a task force chaired by Andrew Sims, which has been referred to here this morning, published a report on reforming part one of the code. They heard from a range of witnesses and made a series of recommendations, but were divided on one major issue: the treatment of replacement workers under federal labour law.

It was also mentioned that Dr. Rodriguez Blouin offered a damning minority report of his own on the issue of replacement workers. Blouin's view on the issue was unmistakable. Here's a quote of what he said:

The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system, by introducing a foreign body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute, and leads eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.

Experience bears out Dr. Blouin's worst fears. In cases where disputes have occurred, employers need only to give the appearance that they are bargaining in good faith. After they meet this criterion, they are free to use replacement workers. In the cases of Telus, Ekati Mines, Vidéotron, Sécur, and Giant Mine, this is precisely what happened. So when a few renegade employers think otherwise, it is critical that rules exist to protect working families, our economy, and Canada's commitment to labour rights. Rules on replacement workers speak loudly to the priorities held in the federal labour laws.

Ultimately, the debate on Bill C-257 raises a larger question and cuts to the heart of what any labour relations system should be about: balance and fairness for all parties in a workplace relationship.

As Canada gears up for the 21st century, we must use an economic model that fits our values--or will it choose an economic model that enhances business productivity by ignoring core labour rights? Or will we follow the lead of enlightened countries and choose a model that emphasizes dynamic research, cutting-edge skills, and sincere commitment to labour rights?

We urge the federal government and the human resources committee to choose the latter, and of course a better course. Canada's federal rules on replacement workers continue to draw controversy, and will do so until the legitimate concerns of working families are addressed. When Bill C-257passed second reading in the House of Commons, Canada moved one step closer to joining those enlightened nations that value labour rights. It was a remarkable moment when politicians dispensed with partisan differences and joined forces to do the right thing.

In the interest of true balance and fairness and the rights of working families, we urge you to continue this course by amending the federal labour code to reflect the values widely held by Canadians.

In our brief we made two key points that were raised before the committee earlier. During the discussion between the CLC and MPs, all political parties and many MPs asked, how will the use of Bill C-257 comply with essential services in the Canada Labour Code?

The code sets out a clear responsibility for unions and employers on essential services to be maintained during a strike or lockout. Section 87.4 specifically makes reference to that. The point we want to make here is that the CLC maintains very strongly to this committee that Bill C-257 complies with the provisions of the Canada Labour Code in ensuring that essential services are maintained in the face of a strike or lockout. Further, we also go on to talk about the powers of the minister to investigate, where there is a breach in the legislation, who's best to be doing that. We recommend that the Canada Labour Relations Board should be charged with the responsibility of dealing with any breach in regard to the amended legislation.

Thank you.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you for the opportunity to present before the committee.

The CLC brings together national and international unions, provincial and territorial federations of labour, 137 labour councils in every community. Our members, of course, work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all parts of Canada. So it's quite an extensive membership when you think of the broadness of the CLC.

Bill C-257 addresses a critical subject in federal labour law, one that has yet to be resolved despite years of discussion, research, and bitter experience. The issue concerns replacement workers and whether federal sector employers can use them during strikes or lockouts. In our view, the evidence shows replacement workers are bad for working families, bad for business, and bad for Canada. Replacement workers undermine core labour rights, encourage a few destructive employers—and I say few—and damage the productivity of Canada's economy.

The CLC holds strongly to the view that strikes and lockouts that are accompanied by the employer's use of replacement workers give rise to several negative and unnecessary strains on the labour-management relationship.

[Santo Alborino]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in this public hearing on Bill C-257, which is about replacement workers.

Just a couple of statistics. We represent 54 chartered banks, which employ over 249,000 Canadians, 218,000 of whom fall under federal jurisdiction. In addition to our employees, we also represent the interests of literally millions of customers across the country. These are Canadians who depend on the banking system 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The CBA is strongly opposed to this bill. We believe it is seriously flawed and should not be passed. I would like to highlight just four items that are of concern to us.

First of all, financial services in the 21st century are very much reliant on the telecommunications industry for the delivery of banking services and operate on the interbank payments system. The clearing and settlement system is largely managed by the Canadian Payments Association, and the ability to enable payment exchange is the core of the payments system.

The banning of replacement workers by Bill C-257 poses a high degree of operational risk in financial services in the event of a strike in the telecommunications industry, if telecommunications companies are not able to make use of replacement workers. In such situations, where telephone or data transmission lines are not maintained and become disabled, there could potentially be severe repercussions on consumers and business customers. We are really talking about the everyday Canadian here. We're not talking about the banking industry as such. It touches every one of you.

Banking services have been revolutionized by advances in telecommunications technology over the past several decades, so the geographic barriers that existed have been dismantled and the network of electronics has made banking possible to almost every Canadian, regardless of the vastness of our country. It really has been a benefit. Canadians have embraced this and have made this choice out of convenience and have opted to use these banking services through the Internet and through all kinds of electronic means. We strongly believe technology will continue to grow and become widely used by Canadians through Internet access.

Electronic financial services delivery is provided through various networks. Our written submission will provide you with a partial list of those systems, but let me just mention a few.

The Canadian Payments Association manages four major networks provided by major communications carriers. One of these networks supports electronic fund transfers--mainly business to business--company payrolls, pre-authorized debits, and bill payments. Again, it impacts every one of us. Literally millions of messages are exchanged on this system on a daily basis. A strike by carriers that provides these lines, regardless of how small or how remote they are, could have major consequences--and I say could--if the line was not maintained or was allowed to fail for some reason.

While there is a backup system, it is manual and does not function as effectively as the main system. Telephone dial-up lines, credit and debit point-of-sale terminals for the provision of goods and services to Canadians--we're talking about Canadians, not the banking industry. Canadians are the world's top debit card users. The Interac direct payment service allows customers to use their debit cards to pay for purchases at retail stores. Services provided through Interac's financial institution members offered by 391,000 retailers who use this system across Canada would be really affected.

Quick statistics when we talk about the impact on the economy: in 2005, over three billion direct payment transactions valued at more than $137 billion were processed through the IDP system.

Internet banking uses the services of large Internet service providers who in turn rely on the provision of telecommunications. A 2006 survey by the Canadian Bankers Association indicates that 27% of Canadians rely on this method to do their banking, and 45% of Canadians did at least some of their banking through the online system. As I mentioned before, we believe these figures will continue to increase as the wide spread of Internet and technology goes forward.

The issue is this. The Canadian Payments Association has indicated the possibility of telecommunications failure as a major operational risk for the Canadian payments system. Delays in the payment system, let alone failure, can be devastating for businesses and for customers. The ability to use replacement workers in a telecommunications strike, whether at a regional or national level, would be essential to maintain the integrity of the system.

The second major concern is that the bill does not recognize the unique, national role of the federally regulated industries. It ignores the fact that they constitute the infrastructure that provides stability and keeps the Canadian economy running. All of the federally regulated industries are essential to the business operations of the country through their sometimes complex, highly integrated networks of transportation, of telecommunications, and of financial services. A failure in any one part of these federally regulated industries, such as airlines, or—I think we mentioned it before—ports or financial services, may have business and/or consumer impacts of a national scope. The ability to maintain a minimum level of service is critical.

Statistics that have been put forward by supporters of this bill have been selective and do not reflect the true picture of labour unrest and strike experience in the provinces where there is currently a ban on replacement workers.

We have consulted statistics that are publicly available, by the way, on the website of Human Resources and Social Development Canada's Workplace Information Directorate. Our objective was to determine whether legislation limiting the use of replacement workers in Quebec and B.C. has produced more harmonious labour relationships in those provinces when compared with Ontario, which with the exception of a few years between 1992 and 1995 has not banned the use of replacement workers. We looked at 30 years of data, from 1976 to 2005, and avoided the simple year-to-year comparisons, which are potentially misleading, depending when the contracts came due or when they were negotiated.

You will find graphs demonstrating our findings in our written submission. The time is brief, so I will skip the statistics.

Over the 30-year period, workers in Quebec were two and a half times more likely to be on strike than workers in Ontario. The same goes for B.C. And over the same 30-year period, the duration of strikes in Quebec was 87% longer than the strikes in Ontario, while the duration of strikes in B.C. was twice as long.

There is one last statistic in respect to this. The number of strikes in Quebec per 1,000 workers was higher than in Ontario for every year, by about 90% on average, while in B.C. it was only 8%.

Fourth, and fundamentally—I am at the end of my presentation—the bill ignores the employer's right to maintain operations while in a strike or lockout position, to serve its customers, and thereby to maintain their loyalty and the business. There were two very important task forces 30 years apart, the Woods task force and the Sims task force, in 1996. Both came to the same conclusion: that replacement workers are necessary and should not be banned.

Why is it—and I ask you this question—that only one province other than Quebec, which is B.C., has seen fit to adopt this type of legislation in over 30 years?

In conclusion, the careful research balance and the code achieved in 1999 are not to be taken for granted and dismissed out of hand.

We urge members of this committee to reflect carefully and without haste on the potential ramifications of Bill C-257. The ban against replacement workers would destroy the current balance that is working in the interest of employers, unions, and the Canadian economy, most importantly. It will set back labour relations in this country significantly. Instead of looking to the future and building on the constructive relationships that there are, it looks to the past and the bitter disputes of former decades.

There is no need to alter what has worked well. I would urge you not to pass this bill.

Thank you.

[Don Brazier]

I only have two minutes left? Gee, I've hardly started. Well, if I only have two minutes left, I'm just going to go through a couple of other points.

This would be the most draconian legislation we have federally. I listened this morning to everybody talking about the essential services provision. That would be the equivalent of section 111.17 in Quebec, and section 72 in B.C. There's nothing in here. There's nothing. There's not a thing in here. Everybody can talk about it. Of course you can have an essential services provision, but where is it? There is no essential services provision. This is more draconian than B.C. Even Blouin--and you quoted it--would have allowed contracting out of work that is prohibited by Bill C-257.

By the way, I'm not going to talk about the numbers. I think there has been too much discussion about numbers. This bill isn't going to be determined or judged on different numbers. But Blouin himself, on page 174 of his report, indicated that the data are inconclusive as to the impact of replacement worker legislation. That's right in his report, on page 174.

The only other thing, if I'm running out of time, is that I would certainly never suggest that this is the proper way to amend the Canada Labour Code. But if one were actually to even consider this, there's a whole pile of other areas you would have to take into consideration. The workload on the CIRB will increase considerably as a result of this. There will be multiple requests under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code.

One very significant and controversial amendment to the code, in 1999, was the 60-day conciliation procedure. Nobody believed it worked. It was really controversial. As a matter of fact, we were really pushing the envelope by putting that kind of provision in, because it was felt that this would increase strikes. I would suggest that you have to give serious consideration as to whether that is an appropriate provision when you have a ban on replacement workers. You'd have to look at the rules dealing with strikes and lockouts, and of course the one I mentioned, and that is the fact that there's no essential services provision.

As I indicated before, if passed, this would make this the most draconian piece of labour legislation in the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentation. There will be two tours of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second round of five minutes.

I will once again try to keep a close eye on the clock. It's such a tight timeline. We are already 15 minutes behind, which just means that some of the members will be eating their lunch on their lap probably sometime a little bit later on.

I do want to remind everyone, though, that the questions should come to the chair. I'm going to start with Mr. Brazier, for seven minutes, and then we'll move all the way around the table.

Mr. Brazier.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Did it occur to you that if Bill C-257 were adopted by the House of Commons, people could resort to extreme behaviour because the country's economy would be completely paralyzed?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable members, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill C-257, An Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (Replacement Workers).

As you know, if adopted this bill could have serious consequences for the conduct of labour-management relations in the federally regulated private sector, and I think that it is important that we all take a considered look at these consequences before any irrevocable decisions are made.

Labour legislation obviously impacts both labour and management and any law affecting their relationship must take into account the aspirations of both parties. But the impact of labour management relations goes beyond the domain of the two parties; they affect national economic and social outcomes. They affect production, employment, wage gains, profits, individual income, productivity and competitiveness, to name a few of the key elements of an economic and social system.

Mr. Chairman, our government is based on principle. In the context of labour management relations, there are two key principles that apply: balance and evidence.

The current provisions of Part I of the Canada Labour Code came into being after a long and considered study that included a Task Force chaired by Andrew Sims, a former chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The Task Force report, entitled Seeking a Balance, attempted to do exactly what its title said—to balance the interests of both employers and employees fairly. Even the Task Force did not reach unanimity on the issue of replacement workers, but the majority report recommended a provision that would give employers the flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, while preventing them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.

I am going to repeat these three short lines because they are important: allow employers to meet their operating responsibilities while using replacement workers, but not in a fashion that would undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. That's what you call balance.

The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code are based on this very reasonable compromise recommended by Mr. Sims. Part I of the Code is the product of a considerable effort to address the interests of all stakeholders, not just the interests of one stakeholder at the expense of all others. Bill C-257 would substitute a very one-sided approach, and would undo the years of work that went into developing fair and balanced labour legislation at the federal level.

The industries that fall under federal jurisdiction operate in many essential sectors such as telecommunications right across Canada, not just in one province; transportation Canada-wide; grain handling; and longshoring. A work stoppage in any of these industries causes significant disruption, not just for the employer but for the many Canadians who depend on the effective and efficient operation of these key infrastructure industries.

Before the 1999 amendment to the Code, there were numerous work stoppages in the federal jurisdiction that required Parliamentary intervention in the form of back-to-work legislation, in order to ensure that these important services continued without interruption. Since the 1999 amendments, there has been no such need for Parliamentary intervention—a fact that I submit, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the right balance between the competing interests of labour and management has been found, and should be maintained.

Bill C-257 would disrupt this fragile balance. It would remove the economic discipline that obliges unions and employers to negotiate reasonably. The balance found in the current legislation enables unions to put pressure on employers while simultaneously allowing employers to operate at some level during a labour dispute, without overly compromising the quality of services provided.

In other words, imagine there was a strike in Canada's port or railway services sector. That would have an impact throughout the entire country and would affect the economy from coast-to-coast. It is for this reason that we must consider maintaining the current balance when it comes to using replacement workers. The employer must not undermine the union's representativeness. Should the union deem this to be the case during a strike, it may lodge a complaint against the employer, before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

Take air transport, for example. It is an important public service which has a major impact on Canada's economy. No one would dispute this. Let's imagine the baggage handlers and flight attendants of a particular carrier decide to go on strike. If all of a sudden these groups go on strike, the airport authorities will make an effort to continue to provide services to certain destinations, both domestically and abroad, and maintain some services, while being fully aware that things could not continue to operate that way for very long. And it wouldn't be in the interest of flight attendants or baggage handlers to unduly prolong the dispute. They would be aware of the stakes and what they might lose both at the bargaining table and with respect to the public's opinion should the conflict drag on. Both parties hold some sway in such a confrontation and this is exactly what strikes the balance we enjoy under the current legislation, which was enacted in 1999.

The use of replacement workers helps to maintain this balance without giving either party too much power. The proof is in the pudding: 19 complaints have been lodged with the Canada Industrial Relations Board over the past seven years, and only two are still being considered.

Yes, the system works. Some people who agree with me, however, maintain that air transport does not provide essential services such as those dispensed in hospitals and that air transport is not a matter of occupational health and safety. Nevertheless, no one can deny that air transport is an important service which, if not provided, will have nation-wide economic ramifications.

The economic impact of a strike in the port of Montreal or Vancouver, or a strike in the rail sector, whether we are talking freight or passenger transportation, would be just as devastating as the examples I referred to earlier.

What would we do in Canada if the 911 service went on strike? Do we have any essential services? The current bill does not include any. Everything would be paralyzed.

A failure to recognize the Canada-wide economic repercussions of a prohibition on the use replacement workers amounts to a failure to acknowledge the realities of federally regulated workers. If we ban employers from using replacement workers during a strike, we take away their right to continue to operate in an attempt to keep their business and the employees. This means potentially going under or having to lay off employees.

Where the use of replacement workers during a strike prohibited, as is suggested in Bill C-257, both employers and employees will suffer. The balance will be disrupted, and both parties' right to choose is taken away from them. How can you take away both parties' right to make a choice and still say that Bill C-257 has unanimous support? It simply isn't the case, and if you need to ask the question, you've got your answer.

A second principle that must be taken into account in determining whether a law should be modified or not is the principle of evidence. Before a law is modified, there should be clear evidence showing that the change will be beneficial. Mr. Chairman, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to show that the changes contained in Bill C-257 will bring any benefits to the labour-management relationship or to the national economy.

Contrary to the claims of supporters of this Bill, there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have significantly more work stoppages per employee than Ontario, a province with a comparable economy that does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.

Secondly, in jurisdictions where legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers is in place, there has been no decrease in the average duration of work stoppages. In fact, independent academic studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during labour disputes is associated with more frequent and longer strikes.

Mr. Chairman, our collective bargaining system is built on the right of both parties to periodically test their respective economic strength, and the collective bargaining outcomes that result reflect the true worth of the employees' services in a free market place. If this discipline of economic reality is removed from the collective bargaining arena, then the possibility is heightened that one side will pursue a position that is so unreasonable that it cannot be sustained, and the enterprise will fail. Is this environment that we want to create for our key infrastructure industries? I say no, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the lack of evidence.

In closing, I reiterate that the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code represent an appropriate balance, they have worked well for the last seven years, and there is no evidence that legislation banning the use of replacement workers will reduce the frequency or duration of work stoppages. We are risking economic havoc if we tinker with the current legislation in the manner proposed by Bill C-257.

I therefore urge committee members to put partisan politics aside, to consider what is in the best interests of all Canadians and the free collective bargaining system that we all believe in passionately, and to refuse to proceed any further with this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The clerk informs me that we are in Bill C-257. That is the order of business, so anything that pertains to that is fair game.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll start right away with a presentation. Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), also called the anti-scab bill, should be adopted by the House of Commons. The reason is quite simple: replacement workers or strike breakers have no place in labour relations.

To this end, I'd like to quote an extract from the 1996 minority report by Rodrigue Blouin, a member of the task force responsible for reviewing Part I of the Canada Labour Code which stresses the illegitimacy of replacement workers:

The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system, by introducing a foreign body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute, and leads eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.

There certainly are naysayers when it comes to anti-scab legislation. For example, the Fraser Institute and the Institut économique de Montréal, two right-wing think tanks which twist the figures and make them say what employers want to hear. Unfortunately, our labour minister, relying on such partisan points of reference, stated the following in the House on September 22, and I quote:

There is no evidence suggesting a ban on the use of replacement workers will benefit workers in any of the ways claimed [...]

And yet, 29 years of anti-scab legislation in Quebec indicates the very opposite. The same is true of the anti-scab legislation in British Columbia which was enacted in 1993. Such legislation allows for civilized negotiation in a labour dispute, whether it be a strike or a lockout, reduces violence on the picket lines as well as the social upheaval and psychological problems caused by stress during such conflicts. It helps reduce employees' resentment when they go back to work, and promotes balance and greater transparency in negotiations between employers and employees.

This bill will ensure that labour and management negotiate on an equal footing with a view to reaching a fair solution as soon as possible. It reduces the number of lawsuits filed during a conflict, and helps to shorten the duration of disputes, which has the effect of minimizing employees' loss in income and employers' loss in profits.

Here are a few telling figures. Quebec workers whose employer falls under federal jurisdiction are virtually always under-represented in terms of the number of days of work lost. Therefore, although they constitute less than 8% of Quebec's labour force, they account for 18% of the person-days lost in 2004 and 22.6% of the person-days lost in 2003. This percentage peaked in 2002 at a time when 7.3% of Quebec workers employed by federally regulated organizations were responsible for 48% of the workdays lost due to labour conflicts.

The number of workdays lost due to labour conflicts disputes is less under anti-scab legislation. Let's take the legislation passed in 1997 in Quebec as a point of reference. The average duration of work stoppages in 1976 was 39 days, 33 days in 1977 and 27 days in 2002, which is even less.

In British Columbia, following the adoption of anti-scab legislation in 1993, the amount of time lost dropped by 50% between 1992 and 1993. The average number of working days lost from 1992 to 2002 was 16 days under the Quebec Labour Code, and 31 days under the Canada Labour Code.

The number of days lost per 1,000 employees from 1992 to 2002 was 121 days under the Quebec Labour Code and 266 days under the Canada Labour Code.

The Vidéotron conflict which lasted over 10 months alone led to 355 workdays being lost in Quebec in 2002. This is more than a third of the total work days lost in Quebec in 2002 due to a strike or a lockout.

The year 2002 was a record year when it comes to the number of person-days lost. It's important to note that this unfortunate fact is largely attributable to strikes in federally-regulated organizations, which are much longer.

As for the changes that need to be made to the current Canada Labour Code—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to an order of reference of October 25, 2006, the committee will now commence consideration of Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on replacement workers.

Just before I give the floor to Mr. Nadeau, I want to indicate some of the following items to our members who are present here.

The Minister of Labour could not be with us today, but he will be with us for an hour on December 5, at 9 o'clock.

I also want to welcome, in the name of the committee, Mr. Marc Toupin, who is the assigned legislative clerk who will be assisting the committee in its work regarding the bill that we have before us.

I also want to mention that we've received three new motions that have had their 48-hour notice, so we will reserve some time at the end of the meeting, scheduled for 90 minutes, to discuss motions with the members.

And I just want to remind all members again that the subcommittee will meet after the full committee, in this room, in camera, to select the list of witnesses who will be appearing before the committee next week.

Mr. Nadeau, I want to welcome you here. You have the floor for ten minutes, sir.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour to table here nearly 1,500 signatures in support of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). As we know, antiscab legislation can shorten labour disputes, improve the atmosphere in the workplace and provide a balance in means of exerting pressure during negotiations for both management and employees.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6), today I am tabling in this House a petition containing several signatures by constituents of the riding of Manicouagan.

This petition is in addition to the numerous petitions already tabled in the House in support of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). The prohibition against using replacement workers—or strikebreakers, to use the petitioners’ term—contributes to the establishment and maintenance of civilized negotiations during labour disputes. This is the reason why the petitioners are asking Parliament to support Bill C-257, so as to prohibit employers covered by the Canada Labour Code from using replacement workers or fulfilling the functions of employees on strike or lockout.

Alleged Similarity of Private Members' Bills--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River on November 1, 2006, concerning Bill C-257, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau, and Bill C-295, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Both bills amend the Canada Labour Code in relation to replacement workers.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised this matter and the hon. member for Vancouver East for having made a submission.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River argues that these bills are substantially the same, except for some minor differences relating to fines. A decision was taken by the House on October 18 to adopt Bill C-257 at second reading and refer it to committee. The hon. member argues, in light of this decision, that debate should not continue on Bill C-295 and that the bill should be removed from the order of precedence.

The hon. member for Vancouver East contends that although both bills deal with the same subject, they are different and, therefore, Bill C-295 should not be removed from the order of precedence.

Let me first clarify our practices with regard to items of private members’ business which are similar. Standing Order 86(4) states:

The Speaker shall be responsible for determining whether two or more items are so similar as to be substantially the same, in which case he or she shall so inform the member or members whose items were received last and the same shall be returned to the member or members without having appeared on the notice paper.

When this Standing Order was first adopted, private members' business operated very differently than it does today. The Standing Orders provided for only 20 items of private members' business to be placed by lottery on the order of precedence and provided that, of those, only three bills could come to a vote. Realistically, then, there was little chance that bills considered substantially the same would ever be drawn together and placed on the order of precedence, let alone be debated and voted upon. Given those odds, Standing Order 86(4) came to be involved only rarely: only when a bill was identical to one already introduced would it be refused. This generous interpretation is referred to in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on November 2, 1989, at pages 5474-5 of Debates, where he states:

I should say that in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if, first, they have the same purpose and, second, they obtain their purpose by the same means.

Accordingly, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if they took a different approach to the issue the Chair would judge them to be sufficiently different so as not to be substantially the same.

The intent...was to give members an opportunity to put before the House items of concern to them, but to prevent a multiplicity of identical bills being submitted....

As Mr. Speaker Fraser explained, this interpretation had the practical effect of giving a member an opportunity to bring forward a legislative proposal on any subject, regardless of what other members might be doing. This practice has served members well until the present case.

The current Standing Orders, which were first adopted provisionally in May 2003, provide for a single draw of the names of all members at the beginning of a Parliament. On the 20th sitting day following the draw, the first 30 members on the list who have introduced a bill or given notice of a motion on the notice paper, constitute the order of precedence. Following the draw, the subcommittee on private members' business needs to determine if any of the items should be designated non-votable pursuant to Standing Order 91.1. In determining whether any of the items should be deemed non-votable, the subcommittee considers whether or not any of the bills or motions are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session.

In the case at hand, a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that 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 following minor differences distinguish them: First, Bill C-257 provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each day that an offence occurs, whereas Bill C-295 provides for a fine not exceeding $10,000; second, Bill C-257 contains subparagraph (2.1)(f) in clause 2 concerning prohibitions relating to the use of replacement workers, text that is not found in Bill C-295; and third, subclause (2.2) in Bill C-257 appears as subclause (2.9) in Bill C-295.

Other than these three differences, both bills are identical in terms of their legislative and procedural impact. The only concrete difference between them relates to the sum of the fines. While this is an important matter, it does not make the bills into distinctly different legislative initiatives. The Chair must therefore conclude that both bills are substantially the same and achieve their objectives through the same means.

The question then becomes, should the second bill, Bill C-295, be allowed to proceed?

It seems to the Chair that there is considerable risk involved in allowing bills that are substantially the same to be debated. It puts at risk a key principle of parliamentary procedure, namely, that a decision once made cannot be questioned again, but must stand as the judgment of the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 495, explains that the principle exists for very good reason.

This is to prevent the time of the House from being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

In the present case, we have an unusual convergence of circumstances. Not only were the bills sponsored by the hon. members for Gatineau and Vancouver Island North both placed on the notice paper, their names were also among the first 30 drawn for the order of precedence. Moreover, the subcommittee on private members' business faced with the fact that debate had yet to begin on items of private members' business could not deem one of the bills to be non-votable since the House had not yet taken any decisions on such business.

Today, the Chair has found itself in an unprecedented situation. I have concluded that Bill C-295 is substantially the same as Bill C-257. Ordinarily, I would order Bill C-295 to be dropped from the order paper in conformity with this standing order. However, given that this situation has never arisen before, I am reluctant to make a final ruling since this may be the only opportunity in this Parliament that the hon. member for Vancouver Island North gets to have an item on the order of precedence. At the same time, the Chair cannot allow the bill to go forward for its last hour of debate and the vote that would follow.

So, instead, in accordance with Standing Order 94(1), which provides the Speaker with the authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of private members' business, I am ordering that Bill C-295 be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

This delay in the consideration of Bill C-295 is designed to provide the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with sufficient time to examine this matter and suggest some resolution to the situation for the sponsor of the bill. The committee should also consider whether our practices in relation to the application of Standing Order 86(4) continue to serve the House in an effective manner given that our rules respecting private members' business have changed since this Standing Order was first adopted.

In the absence of a solution to the predicament of the sponsor of Bill C-295, the Chair will have no option when the bill next reaches the top of the order of precedence, I will order that debate not proceed, that the order for the bill's consideration be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the order paper.

Once Again, I thank the hon. members for Scarborough—Rouge River and for Vancouver East for having brought this situation to the attention of the Chair and of the House. It is an important contribution to the evolution of private members' business.

I believe the effect of the ruling will be that there will be no private members' business taken up this evening.

Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07

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

Mr. Chair, I realize that, even when I restate my questions so that they are simpler, I do not get an answer. I do understand, however, that the minister is not making any promises and I am quite worried about what will happen next.

Since I am an incurable optimist, I will nevertheless ask my second question.

Will the minister promulgate Bill C-257 when adopted at third reading? I would like a yes or no answer.

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

Let me get right to the questions.

Does the minister plan to give parliamentarians what they want by asking his government not to slow down the work in committee and to enact Bill C-257 when it is passed at third reading?

Alleged Similarity of Private Members' Bills

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I did not hear the beginning of the comments of the member who has raised the question about Bill C-257 and Bill C-295, but I have the general gist of it. There are a number of issues here as well as concerns that we would want to put forward, because it is our member who has introduced Bill C-295.

The first point I would make is that when these bills were introduced they were approved by the Table. They both came forward in good faith, so certainly to suggest now that through some other arbitrary measure or ruling by the Speaker or that you somehow make a decision that one bill would be removed, I think that would very much place this member in limbo.

The fact is that these two bills, although they deal with the same subject matter, that is, replacement workers, are different bills. There are differences between the two bills, for example, in the question of penalties. I do not have the two bills before me so I cannot go through them clause by clause, but there are differences in these bills. That is why they were permitted in the first place.

If you made such a ruling as requested by the member from the Liberal Party, what would happen to that member who has the second bill? She has proceeded in good faith. She is about to go to a second hour of debate. If she chooses to make some other arrangement with a member in terms of the order in which things come up, that is her prerogative, but to have that decided by a third party, whether it is you or somebody else, I think would be very unusual. I do not know on what basis that would be done. I would be very concerned that she would lose the position she has. I think that would actually set a precedent, because then where else would it happen in private members' business?

I understand the concerns of the member, but I think to take such an action through the Speaker and to remove that member's place would be highly unusual and very problematic. The bill is now here and it is in effect the property of the House. I really question whether or not what the member is suggesting is a wise thing to do in the long run and so I would ask you to take that under advisement if you are going to consider this question.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this point of order concerns the presence of Bill C-257 and Bill C-295 on our order paper. Both of these bills are private members' bills and they provide for prohibitions on the use by employers in federal jurisdictions of replacement workers during a strike. Bill C-257 was passed at second reading by this House on October 25, last week.

Both of these bills are substantially the same and I proceed on the assumption that the Speaker will agree that they are substantially the same, one minor difference between them being that the quantum of a fine or penalty for an infraction is slightly different.

The passage or adoption of both of these bills would create a legal impossibility or confusion here for our Parliament and for the public. The House is now faced with this issue. Fortunately, we do have some wisdom of a previous House to rely on.

The question is, what should happen to the second bill, which the House has not voted on yet? I refer to the ruling of the Speaker in this chamber on October 29, 1957, almost exactly 49 years ago, when a bill introduced by a member to provide for vacation pay for employees in federal jurisdictions was substantially the same as a government bill then introduced. From the journal, the Speaker quotes from Erskine May, 15th Edition, page 499:

There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the House has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions, and such a bill could not have been introduced on a motion for leave. But if a bill is withdrawn, after having made progress, another bill with the same objects may be proceeded with.

Here I refer the Speaker also to Beauchesne's sixth edition, at page 198, note 653.

If the Chair agrees that because of the adoption of Bill C-257 last week some step must be taken to deal with Bill C-295, the question is, then, what is to be done?

Bill C-295 is currently on the order of precedence and could ordinarily move to a second hour of debate and a vote as early as next week, I think next Tuesday. I think it is clear that this bill should not be further debated and should not be voted on at second reading. The bill should be removed from the order of precedence because that listing is specifically designed to provide for debate and disposition by the House.

I would submit that it is not necessary to have the bill totally withdrawn because it is possible that Bill C-257, which was passed, could be defeated or negatively dealt with by this House or a committee in the future.The way would then be clear for the mover of Bill C-295 to proceed with that bill.

However, we should also note that the member introducing Bill C-295, which has not been dealt with at second reading by the House, has already been selected by our rules to move a bill that he has selected, and he has chosen this one. It would be arguably unfair to prejudice his position by placing him and his bill back in the initial order paper, at the back of the line behind all of the members who have private members' business.

What I am suggesting is that the Speaker place the bill aside in a type of procedural holding place, a procedural position not yet provided for in our rules but adverted to in the 1957 Speaker's ruling, so that the bill could be placed on the order of precedence again in this session, or even in a subsequent session, if that is consistent with the procedures for private members bills'. As for Bill C-257, if it is defeated or otherwise removed from the order paper, this issue could also be reviewed, of course, by the procedure and House affairs Committee.

I hope my comments are helpful to the Chair and will enable the Speaker to take the most appropriate action on this matter.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the minister will be meeting with the standing committee as soon as possible. However, let me address one of the points that the hon. member has made.

While in her esteemed opinion Bill C-257 is a bill that will protect both the workplace and the worker, independent analysis and studies have proven just the opposite. In fact, studies have proven that for those companies that do not have replacement workers, the strikes last a shorter duration and the settlements are actually higher. These are well documented.

For those reasons and many more, I would suggest that all members of the standing committee take a close look at the impact that this bill will have. I will assure members that banning replacement workers will have nothing but a detrimental effect on both the employer and the employees.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that the hon. member had more time because I know how quickly even two hours in a filibuster goes.

Let me begin by saying that the minister responsible and the majority of members of this House recognize one simple fact. Bill C-257, which calls for changes in the Canada Labour Code in the banning of replacement workers, was accepted in a vote by the majority of members of this House. We accept this and we certainly accept the will of Parliament.

We are pleased to see that this bill will be referred to a standing committee. The committee will be able to examine this bill in far more detail and hopefully make some significant and substantive changes to this bill. I must state that the majority of members on the government's side are opposed to this legislation in principle.

Why? Bill C-257 does not provide in my view any benefits to workers and it does not balance the needs of employers, employees and unions. We all know and we all agree that successful labour relations must have a balance. They cannot be one-sided. The scales cannot be weighted so heavily on one side or the other because that would sort of tip that balance of equity and fairness that both employers and employees feel that they require.

The existing provisions of the Canada Labour Code succeeded in balancing the interests of labour and management, and providing the flexibility needed when dealing with labour negotiations. This bill does nothing to address those issues.

As I said, I am extremely pleased that the bill will be studied in some detail by the standing committee. I am sure that the committee will hear evidence that will convince all members of that committee that this bill is not in the interests of Canadian workers nor the Canadian economy.

Let me reiterate one more time that our government maintains there must be a better approach. There is a better approach to dealing with the issue of replacement workers. I know the minister looks forward to discussing this legislation with the standing committee, so they can both work together to build a workforce and an economy that is both prosperous and cooperative.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Since the motion said that we should on November 23...because I was asking for clarification; I was not amending your amendment.

The amendment is that, instead of November 2, November 23 we will work together on the work plan. I would say that we keep the witnesses, and that at the end of the session on November 23 we take half an hour to decide amongst ourselves what the work plan should be. But then it means that any other session from human resources will be based on Bill C-257.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

No, because I'm totally in agreement that when we come back we should right away start to put up a work plan among ourselves and then build up all those meetings on Bill C-257. We are coming back on the 21st--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'd like to make one.

I would like to see it handled after the break, because next week we're travelling. We are studying employability. This bill does have a deadline, although it is in March, so we know that it already has a deadline. I don't know why it's given such priority. However, I understand that he does want to have it here and studied, so I would like at the very least to be considerate and push it to our first meeting after the break, or our second meeting right after the break. That's not that long. We're gone all next week. I want to be here when we study Bill C-257 , so I would like to suggest that we do it immediately after the break.

I think in the best interests of this committee.... We are studying employability. It was high on everyone's agenda. You know, we keep getting diverted with different people's interests. I do want to see this be considered, and we will support it if it can be studied immediately after we get back.

Canada Labour Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to introduce an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. This bill would re-establish a federal minimum wage and set it at $10 an hour.

Canada is unfortunately and quite unnecessarily considered a low wage country with high rates of poverty. It is time for Parliament to show leadership at the federal level in the area of income security. The Arthurs report, which was released this morning, clearly calls on us to make fair and equitable labour standards a national priority. It also strongly suggests that we re-establish a federal minimum wage in this country.

It is my sincere hope that this bill will find support among MPs from all political parties in this House. The second reading of Bill C-257 to ban replacement workers shows what we can do when we reach across party lines to accomplish results for working people.

I hope that all members in this House will support this bill and other measures to ensure that in a just society, no one working full time and for a full year should find themselves living in poverty.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-257 under private members' business.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Remplacement workers

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table in this House a petition with over 2,000 signatures in favour of Bill C-257 against replacement workers.

Quebec has had such legislation for 30 years for workers under Quebec's jurisdiction. Strikes and disputes do not last as long, they are less violent and the general mood is healthier when employees go back to work. Generally speaking, there is labour peace in Quebec. This is due in large part to the anti-scab legislation.

Some 2,000 workers from across Quebec have signed this petition.

I want thank in particular Monique Allard from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for collecting most of the signatures.

Canada Labour Code

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) is intended as a humanistic reflection of our society. That is why we ask all members of the 39th Parliament to vote in favour of this bill in principle.

Its aim is to encourage civilized negotiations during labour disputes—during strikes or lockouts—and to reduce picket line violence and the social and psychological problems caused by the stress of labour disputes. It would diminish the resentment that employees feel upon returning to work and foster a just balance and greater transparency in the negotiations between employers and employees.

This bill will ensure that the management and union parties negotiate under the same constraints in order to facilitate a quick and fairer solution.

The bill has several objectives: reduce the number of legal proceedings resulting from strikes and lockouts, shorten the duration of these strikes and lockouts, and reduce the lost income of workers and lost profits of employers.

Here are few figures on this point that are worth considering. Quebec workers whose employer is under federal jurisdiction almost always have a higher number of lost work days.

So although they make up less than 8% of the labour force in Quebec, they accounted for 18% of lost person-days in 2004 and 22.6% of lost person-days in 2003.

This reached a peak in 2002, when 7.3% of Quebec workers were employed in organizations under federal jurisdiction. They were responsible for 48% of the work days lost because of labour disputes.

The number of work days lost because of labour disputes drops when there is anti-strikebreaker legislation. Here are a few figures: the average number of work days in 1976, before the anti-strikebreaker law in Quebec, was 39.4; afterward, it fell to 32.8 in 1979 and 27.4 in 2001.

In British Columbia, which enacted an anti-strikebreaker law in 1993, the ratio of lost time fell by 50% from 1992 to 1993.

Workers who are subject to the Quebec Labour Code averaged 15.9 lost work days from 1992 to 2002. Workers who were subject to the Canada Labour Code averaged 31.1. For every 1,000 employees subject to the Quebec Labour Code there were 121 lost work days from 1992 to 2002; for workers subject to the Canada Labour Code there were 266.3.

The 10-month dispute at Vidéotron alone resulted in a loss of 355 work days in Quebec in 2002. This was more than a third of all work days lost because of a strike or lockout in Quebec in 2002.

The year 2002 was a record one in terms of person-days lost. It is important to note that this unfortunate record is largely attributable to strikes in organizations under federal jurisdiction. Those strikes last much longer.

If a majority of the House of Commons votes for this bill, this will be an opportunity for parliamentarians and every actor in civil society to take a position on this kind of legislation to amend the Canada Labour Code in the course of a debate on its merits.

Witnesses from every background will be able to express their views to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities of Canada, right here in this institution.

By voting for this bill, members of the House of Commons will ensure, for the first time in the 10 attempts that have been made since the early 1990s to have this bill enacted, that a debate that can only be beneficial to labour relations makes it onto the agenda.

In so doing, we will together be engaged in the worthy cause of recognizing the exceptional contribution made by everyone who goes out to work every day to build our societies.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate in the House Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, it is important that we recognize that at its core this debate is about protecting workers in this country. It is for this reason that I intend to support this legislation.

Even the most basic economic theory recognizes that within any economic system the role of labour is an essential component. People within the workforce are basically asked to provide their labour in return for income.

Therefore, with this most basic economic concept in mind, we need to recognize that for workers the security of their job during a labour dispute is not only an important consideration but an inalienable right.

It was not long ago that workers in this country, and in many similar nations, were required to work in conditions that today would seem unimaginable. For their labour they were compensated, but not at an acceptable level. Nor were they reasonably protected within the workplace. In terms of job security, quite frankly, there was none.

Today much has changed. There is much that still needs to be done. Workers across Canada and in many nations around the world are protected by minimum standards outlined in statutes and further enhanced by union representation.

In my home province of Ontario the basic rights of working people is contained within the Employment Standards Act which outlines standards and reasonable levels of protection workers can expect in this province.

The law enshrines only the most basic rights and there are many who would argue that statutes such as these do not go anywhere near the level of protection that workers really need. Many workers are further protected by the efforts of their union representatives who represent them in collective bargaining agreements.

These unions are also of great service to young people by way of training programs and the like. They also advocate on a variety of labour issues and, like union leaders before them, they fight for workers' rights to protect the hard won advancements workers now enjoy.

In fact, I have been pleased over the years to work with various union leaders such as Ucal Powell, Carlos Pimentel and Mike Yorke of the Carpenters and Allied Workers Union. These people, like so many others in the labour movement, are committed to serving their members.

As a former city councillor, I was instrumental in implementing the city's fair wage policy. The policy set a standard that continues to resonate throughout the public and private sectors and in particular those who choose to do business with the city of Toronto. These are important steps forward for working people in our cities, provinces and the country as a whole.

With respect to Bill C-257, it is important to recognize that in this country the provinces retain the constitutional power to legislate labour regulations and standards for most workers within their jurisdictions. However, the unique nature of our Confederation means that there are many employees in this country who are not covered under federal law.

Those who fall into this category look to the Canada Labour Code for the security other workers may find in their corresponding provincial statutes. Only two provinces in this country, Quebec and British Columbia, have in place statutes that protect the jobs of workers who are participating in a legal labour dispute.

As noted, the fundamental negotiating tool available to workers is their labour. Their work is the commodity they offer in return for their compensation.

There are many international conventions that recognize and encourage this right. For example, the 1981 collective bargaining convention of the United Nations reaffirms that the international labour organization has a solemn obligation to further among nations of the world programs which will achieve the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. This statement speaks of the right of workers to secure effective collective bargaining, including the right to strike that should not be undermined.

It is really quite inconceivable that workers who are involved in a legal work stoppage would have to stand by and watch as their jobs are filled, even if only temporarily, by other people hired by their employers. Without the ability to withdraw their labour, then what do these workers have to negotiate with during periods of collective bargaining?

If employers can simply replace their employees with alternates, then clearly the motivation for an expeditious settlement is removed from the management side of the negotiating equation.

I would note and believe this may have already been pointed out by other members that in the provinces where legislation does prevent replacement workers, there are generally less intense labour-management disputes. What I mean is that the average number of days that employees are on strike in provinces that prevent replacement workers is significantly less than those where they are permitted.

In the provinces that prevent replacement workers, it is clear that there is a greater incentive on the part of employers to negotiate in good faith with employees. The statistics clearly back this assertion.

Similarly, when one looks back at the most contentious and bitter periods of labour unrest, it is quite clear that these periods included attempts by employers to use replacement workers, either permanently or temporarily. This is another major incentive for the House to pass into law Bill C-257.

It can be reasonably argued that the inability of employers to hire replacement workers helps to reduce the intensity of labour disputes in the same way that it clearly reduces the length of work stoppages. There are those who have argued that implementation of the bill would have dire consequences for the nation's economy and for labour-management relations. This is simply not supported by the facts.

Indeed, as noted above, there are two provinces within Canada that have already implemented this kind of legislation and there have not been any of the major problems that some have warned would occur.

The bill before the House deals with the Canada Labour Code. It is a piece of legislation that would apply to all federally regulated workers in Canada. It would not have the force of law within provincial jurisdictions that have not yet adopted this kind of labour protection.

As stated in this debate, only Quebec and British Columbia have laws of this kind. However, by proceeding to pass Bill C-257 we would as a federal government be setting an example for those other provinces. Like the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Auto Workers, I support Bill C-257 because it sets a standard of protection for federally regulated workers across the country.

I encourage all members of the House to join with me in supporting Bill C-257 in order to extend to workers in this country the job security they need and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to commend the commitment of my colleague from Gatineau, who introduced the anti-scab legislation, Bill C-257, and who thereby showed his generosity toward and understanding of workers' rights and his dedication to defending them. I would like to congratulate and thank him.

A lot has been said about the anti-scab bill. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst spoke about it quite eloquently, as did the Liberal member. They made fine analyses of this bill and the advantages it presents.

I have to say—and it is not said enough—that anti-scab legislation reduces the length of strikes. It also reduces violence on the picket lines and at the employer's facilities. It improves the general mood. If the strike is short and all the people have been respectful for the duration, the mood is far better than at the plant next door where conditions were much worse and more problematic.

This creates balance. It creates balance between the workers and employers in Quebec. This respect and balance in pressure tactics available to each party results in labour peace in Quebec and in British Columbia. This is advantageous both to the employee and the employer.

Everyone wins. In Quebec in the past 30 years, no one has questioned the anti-scab legislation that has existed there all this time. That means we have real labour peace. We have balance. It does not lean to the right of centre or in favour of major industry. That would be a false balance, which is what we currently have in places without anti-scab legislation.

In Quebec, one of the problems is that 90% of workers are under federal jurisdiction and are entitled to the benefits of anti-scab legislation. Some 8% of the workforce in Quebec is under federal jurisdiction and is excluded from these benefits. The Bloc Québécois is working hard for those people in collaboration with all the other stakeholders in Canada. It is for this reason that we have to stop having two classes of workers in Quebec.

On June 6, the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec made some arguments that did not make much sense. He said there was less investment in provinces that had anti-scab legislation. I do not understand why he said that.

First, the Minister of Labour and Minister of Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who is also the member for Jonquière—Alma, voted in favour of this bill. I will give you the date. It was November 5, 1990, and it was Bill C-201, introduced by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. He voted for it.

On May 1 of this year, when I asked him in this House, he said that, in Quebec, that was fine, that it was a distinct society. I do not agree with him on the term “distinct society”, but it is what he said. He said there was a tradition in Quebec, an obvious culture in favour of anti-scab legislation, but that, as a minister, he had to consider this under a “Canadian angle.” However, he is now telling us that he will vote against this legislation. It makes no sense for the Conservative Party to vote against legislation that is also beneficial for workers across Canada, and not only in Quebec.

If he considers this under a Canadian angle now that he is a minister, he must then change his mind and vote for this bill. Since we are only at second reading stage, he should at least vote on the principle of the bill to give it an opportunity to be studied in committee. There we could really discuss it. He could invite his witnesses who are saying that strikes last longer.

The member for Beauport—Limoilousuggested that anti-strikebreaker legislation would contribute to increasing the frequency of strikes. This hypothesis was disproven by a researcher named J.W. Budd, who, after reviewing over 2,000 collective agreements in Canada, concluded that there is little evidence suggesting that anti-strikebreaker legislation increases the frequency of strikes.

Those are the Conservative Party's arguments. All of its arguments are bizarre, to say the least.

The minister's first argument that there has been less investment in provinces with anti-strikebreaker legislation was quickly disproven using statistics. He has not brought the argument up again.

I would add that the studies he consulted were conducted by the Fraser Institute and the Montreal Economic Institute. We know these two right-wing think tanks manipulate the numbers until they say exactly what employers want to hear. We have therefore taken these studies and the minister's arguments with a grain of salt. He seems to have done the same, because he has not brought those arguments up again.

On September 22, he came back to the House with a second argument. He said something that is worth hearing again:

Thus, there is no evidence indicating that prohibiting the use of replacement workers has any of the alleged benefits for workers—

Not a single one. Tell that to the millions of workers in Quebec. Tell that to all those who have been on a picket line. Tell that to all those who were on a picket line while replacement workers were crossing it to steal their job, their spot, their salary. Tell workers who must get into debt during a strike because of the presence of replacement workers in their plant that an act prohibiting the use of replacement workers is of no benefit at all. Tell that to workers who, along with their family, are experiencing emotional distress because they do not know where they will find the money to pay next month's rent.

So, when the minister claims in this House that there is no evidence indicating that prohibiting the use of replacement workers has any benefits, he is not credible. We know that he is exaggerating. If he had said that there might be a shred of evidence to that effect, we would have taken his comments into consideration, but he said there is no evidence at all. As we know, such sweeping statements are meaningless, and this is what we thought of the minister's argument.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

We know how many times such a bill has been introduced in the House and rejected by only a few votes. Personally, I can speak from experience. Before talking about the bill per se, I would like to make a few comments.

In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, the spokesperson for the Conservatives, said that we must reach a balance and that anti-scab legislation is not balance. British Columbia and Quebec both have an anti-strikebreaker legislation that works relatively well. It is not true, as the member said, that such legislation produces an increase in the number of strike days, which is 32 on average. I can say that in my riding, workers in the turf pits remained more than 1,500 days without working when the company Lamèque Quality Group declared a lockout. That is more than 32 days. Strikebreakers were called in and that created violence on the picket line. That was the result.

Our laws give us the opportunity and the right to become members of a labour union. They give us the opportunity and the means to negotiate collective agreements. However, in case of a strike or lockout, we give the employers the opportunity to abuse those rights by hiring scabs who take legitimate workers' jobs. Where is the just balance in that situation?

The Conservative member said that Ontario had had such a law and that the government had decided to eliminate it. But she neglected to mention that it was Mike Harris, a Conservative who was then Premier of Ontario, who eliminated it. She said that there has to be a balance, that things have to be fair. The Mike Harris Conservatives also passed a law saying that every employer should have a poster on their company walls describing how employees could go about getting rid of their union.

If the idea is to find something fair and balanced, I do not understand why that same premier and the Conservatives in Ontario did not pass a law to tell employees how to join a union. How is that balanced? That is what Mike Harris and the Conservatives did in Ontario.

Are the Conservatives workers' friends? Do they deserve workers' votes? It will be up to workers to decide. Is it fair if, when you work for an employer, you cannot go on strike and when you are on the picket line, you watch scabs go by. That happened at a company in Bathurst, New Brunswick, in my own riding. It has been a year now since a man from outside the area came to Bathurst to buy Le Château, a hotel. In the negotiations, he decided to take the employees who were working for $9.50 an hour and reduce their pay to minimum wage, $6.70. The employees opted to go on strike. For more than a year, scabs have been doing the employees' work. It is shameful.

In Quebec, employees of CHNC New-Carlisle have been on strike for more than three years. Three years, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages has just said that the Conservatives think that having anti-scab legislation in Quebec has led to more strikes.

We must remember that CHNC is under federal jurisdiction and this is why the strike lasted longer. For example the strike at Radio-Nord took years to be settled. I went to Rouyn-Noranda and Abitibi personally to meet with people on the picket lines. Watching the scabs go by was not a pretty sight.

We remember well the strike that took place in the mines in the Northwest Territories, the tragedy that occurred there where once again a company’s employees saw scabs taking away their living—and they say it has to be well balanced. They are capable of prolonging a strike. I come back to Lameque Quality Group, where they were locked out for 43 months, and the provincial government gave loan guarantees during the lockout of $500,000. It was shameful to see.

We can hope that the Conservatives will take a close look at their conscience and have a little heart for the workers, because it is not just anybody that votes for them; I am sure there are also some workers. This is not acceptable. It is as if we arrived at Parliament one fine day and a group of scabs was entering Parliament to do our work. Perhaps we would think differently then.

Looking at Quebec’s experience, looking at what took place in Quebec with the anti-scab legislation, there are fewer strikes and lockouts in Quebec and there is greater harmony between the workers and the companies when it comes time to bargain. The proof is there.

After this legislation was passed by the Parti québécois, the Liberals were elected twice, but they did not dare to remove the anti-scab legislation, even though they could have. That means that it works. In British Columbia, they could have abolished the anti-scab legislation, but they did not because it works. In Ontario, they had strikes under Mike Harris, under the Conservative government and besides that they told employees how to get rid of the unions. That means that the Conservatives do not believe in an association that defends workers.

I never saw a bill from the Conservatives proposing to abolish the right of employers to join the chamber of commerce. To my mind the chamber of commerce is the union of businesses, of employers, of companies. The Conservatives never put forward legislation to prevent employers from joining the chamber of commerce. But they come up with the sort of legislation they introduced in Ontario. Today we see the Conservatives’ reaction.

If we want a healthy work environment, one in which workers can join the association of their choice, we cannot go just part of the way. We cannot cater only to large corporations, to rich companies or individuals who make workers suffer. That is what happened at the Bathurst hotel and workers have been on the picket line for a year, while scabs are doing their work, because the employer reduced their wage from $9.30 an hour to $6.70 an hour, by taking away all their benefits.

This must no longer be tolerated. We need harmony. Rules must be established to prevent abuse, and the only way to prevent it is by enacting legislation to prohibit scabs from entering workplaces to replace workers, who have been granted the right by the government to resort to strike or lockout action. We give workers rights and then we turn around and give them something else that they can break.

We know what happens on picket lines. They fill armoured buses with workers and put their lives in danger. I could perhaps understand scabs who are unemployed and feel they have no other option. But it puts those workers in danger. Then, the police are forced into dangerous situations. We see fighting in the streets that should not happen.

I congratulate Quebec on its anti-scab legislation. I also congratulate British Columbia. It is now our turn, at the federal level, to do our job and become leaders in eliminating the use of scabs.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for this House to give its full support to Bill C-257 for several reasons, including respect for and consolidation of labour rights, which seem to me to be the most essential elements.

In that respect, this bill is part of Canada's ongoing industrial relations evolution toward guaranteeing fairness and balance between the prosperity of our businesses and the rights of workers.

I would also note that this bill seeks to ensure that labour negotiations take place according to rules that do a better job than we have so far of guaranteeing civility and clarity in the best interests of all parties involved.

Only when all of the parties to a negotiation—or to a labour dispute, if that is the case—are governed by rules that guarantee respect for the rights of each participant can we ensure a process that will mitigate the severity of potential conflicts.

Better yet, clear rules and respect for the rights of the parties are often basic conditions required to avoid worsening the situation and escalating conflict.

That is why this bill deserves the attention and support of the hon. members of the House because it is our primary duty to foster harmonious labour relations, which, in the end, are always good for our prosperity and always benefit our fellow citizens as a whole.

The measures set forth in Bill C-257 establish important standards that will help us achieve these objectives.

We need this bill, or else the rights of workers, which we claim to honour in our legislation, will be ignored and lose all significance or reality.

What would be the purpose of enshrining the right to strike in our legislation if employers could easily keep up the production normally done by the striking workers?

Under these circumstances, the right to strike obviously loses all significance and our laws to protect labour rights would be devoid of any real meaning

As a representative of Quebec in the House, I can attest to the fact that it has been setting a precedent in our country for nearly three decades providing powerful, compelling proof of the benefits of the spirit of this kind of legislation.

Quebec labour law prevents employers from hiring replacement workers, commonly called scabs, when a dispute goes so far as a strike or lockout.

When this Quebec legislation was still at the bill stage, there were very strong and usually negative reactions to it.

There was every reason for this because the spirit of this kind of legislation obviously profoundly altered the labour relations culture that had existed since the beginning of time.

This episode proved that change—especially progress in an area as sensitive as labour relations can be—is never without some conflict and upheavals in the beginning.

However, once the Quebec legislation passed, it did not take all the parties long to find something in it for themselves, to such an extent that there has been a consensus around it for a long time. No one believes anymore that it would be in their best interest to challenge it.

Everyone realizes that when legislation creates unambiguous rules that clearly define and stake out the powers and rights of all parties, negotiations usually benefit, especially because they are a lot more efficient.

What this kind of balance of power does in any industrial bargaining is make it possible for the parties involved to better assess the interests they have in common in any labour dispute.

Employers then become aware of their employees’ interests, and employees are better able to grasp the importance of the company they are working for being able to continue operating profitably and competitively, so that everyone, employers and employees alike, can benefit by ensuring that the company they are working in continues to exist and continues to function.

I would reiterate, however, that to succeed in this scenario, which is based on preserving the commonality of interests and which always benefits both parties at the end of the day, the rules of the game have to be clear and based on the law, and so does the balance of power.

That is where Bill C-257 takes a novel approach, an approach that we must admit is necessary today.

And we have a precedent here in Canada, in the Quebec legislation that bears witness to the wisdom of the legislative action we are being asked to take by supporting the bill we are considering today.

That is why I would like to thank my parliamentary colleagues who have put their efforts into drafting Bill C-257 and introducing it in this House.

In doing this, they have not only done pioneering work at the national level, they have also laid down important benchmarks for the work that must still be done to bring about the kind of prosperity that will provide the greatest possible benefits for Canadians, employers and employees alike.

This is achieved by recognizing and consolidating workers’ rights, in a spirit that also recognizes the interests of our businesses. But we must also not forget the fact that a business is, first and foremost, the sum of everyone who works in it, employers and employees alike.

That is why the more that decisions made by a business are in the common interests of the parties who work there, the greater the guarantees it will have that it will be able to continue operating and that it will have a future.

It is because Bill C-257 reflects that recognition and that spirit that I have the honour of confirming that I will be voting for it.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The study does not offer any evidence that prohibiting the use of replacement workers is an advantage for employees and employers in those regions. Also, in spite of such legislation, every year Quebec and British Columbia process a large number of complaints pertaining to the use of replacement workers. In other words legislation has not eliminated the problem.

It is also interesting to note that in Ontario, which once prohibited the use of replacement workers, later removed the prohibition. And as my colleagues have already pointed out, the statistics do not show that preventing the use of replacement workers shortens the duration of work stoppages or presents advantages for workers.

We can debate this issue for a long time yet, but I know that everyone here feels that it is our duty to be good stewards of the Canadian economy, as long as workers’ rights and employers’ rights are respected in complete impartiality. Impartiality is the very foundation of the Labour Code.

This is a complex issue. The current provisions of the Labour Code deal with this complexity by establishing a fair balance between the interests of employers and employees.

Moreover the Labour Code prohibits an employer from punishing employees who refuse to replace workers who are locked out or on strike or from penalizing them. It guarantees employees’ right to strike and to regain their job.

At the same time employers may pursue their activities and provide useful goods and services during work stoppages. By allowing conciliation and mediation, part I of the Canada Labour Code can also help the parties concerned to resolve their disputes in an atmosphere of respect. So part I of the Canada Labour Code serves the interests of employers and employees equitably, in the difficult context of a labour dispute.

Passing the amendment proposed in Bill C-257 would upset the precious balance established and this would be completely ridiculous. The House should not support this bill.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-257. For me, the response is self-evident. The Canada Labour Code seeks to balance and to reconcile opposing interests in any labour dispute and not to promote the interests of a single group to the detriment of the other.

I shall explain. We are being asked to amend the Canada Labour Code concerning the use of replacement workers.

Anyone who has studied questions of labour policy closely knows that employing replacement workers is far from unanimously accepted, especially here in this House, to judge from the number of times the question has been debated.

There are those, like the opposition member, who have introduced a bill calling for the prohibition of the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage. I am sure that to the member it is almost a profession of faith to maintain that position.

On the other hand, there are those who just as fervently proclaim that an organization must have an absolute right to use replacement workers.

Usually, unions and employee groups are in favour of prohibition while employers normally support the use of replacement workers. Both parties are concerned about their survival.

As it often happens in this kind of debate, both sides offer solid arguments in favour of their positions. It is almost impossible to get either side to accept the point of view of the other. There is nothing surprising about that because we are dealing with a very sensitive issue.

In any event, what concerns me is that Bill C-257 appears to defend the interests of only one party. However, it is clear that as lawmakers our role is not to line up on one side or the other but rather to determine where to find common ground.

I believe that we must ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to arbitrarily amend the Canada Labour Code. Should we not ensure that the Code serves the interests of all the parties involved in labour relations? To me, the answer is clear.

The Canada Labour Code seeks to balance and reconcile the opposing interests in any labour dispute and not to promote the interests of one group to the detriment of the other. The question of replacement workers is a good example of that.

When part I of the Labour Code was amended a few years ago, this House opted for a happy medium between a total ban on the use of replacement workers and the right to use replacement workers.

The code does manage to provide a middle ground by allowing employers to hire replacement workers on a temporary basis and only if their purpose is not to undermine the union's efforts to defend the interests of its members. If an employer's intentions prove less than honourable, the union may appeal to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

At present, the Labour Code has the merit of not favouring one party at the expense of the other. It leaves it up to the parties to conclude a fair collective agreement without infringing upon the right of the other party to preserve its livelihood. By being impartial, the code offers an approach which strikes a balance between competing interests.

This approach has been in use for some time now and, in most instances, the parties to negotiations under the Canada Labour Code have been reasonably happy with it.

The amendment proposed in Bill C-257 would jeopardize this precious balance. This makes it counterproductive, and therefore I cannot support it.

One also has to measure the impact of the use of replacement workers on the duration of work stoppages.

Some contend that prohibiting the use of replacement workers helps settle labour disputes faster. In their opinion, preventing employers from hiring replacement workers makes the bargaining process more effective. The member opposite shares that opinion.

Still, there are arguments on the other side. In fact, some independent expert studies indicate that in the provinces where the use of replacement workers is forbidden by provincial legislation, that is, in British Columbia and Quebec, strikes last longer, on average 32 days longer. Furthermore the probability of a strike in these provinces increases by 12%.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to speak to Bill S-2, since the area of hazardous materials was my concern for several years in my career as a health and safety engineer for Hydro-Québec. I even brought with me the guide my colleagues and I prepared on managing hazardous materials.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Act is governed by a board. This large board is made up of 18 members, including 2 workers, a supplier, an employer, a federal government representative and 4 to 13 representatives from the provinces and territories.

This large board is part of the framework of WHMIS, which stands for Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. WHMIS participants and stakeholders can be divided into four main categories. First are the suppliers and manufacturers. Next are the workers who handle the products. Third are the employers or industries that purchase the products. Finally, there are the provincial, territorial and federal governments that monitor the system.

WHMIS, the information system, must provide workers with all the health and safety information they need to handle hazardous materials without any risk to themselves, their neighbours, friends or colleagues, and in order to avoid all dangerous situations for pregnant women.

Information on the use of hazardous materials in the workplace is provided in two ways. First, information appears on the label. All containers must have an identification label. If a label identifying a product is damaged, covered or illegible, the worker has the right to refuse to handle the container and its contents, and can have the contents verified by the manufacturer, if the manufacturer is identified on the label. Otherwise, the product is disposed of in a safe manner.

The second is the material safety data sheet, which must be kept in a catalogue accessible to everyone at all times. It is important to emphasize “at all times”. Regular drills must be conducted to verify the storage location of the binder or catalogue. The MSDS must also be kept up to date and must be accessible to workers. This means the catalogue or MSDS cannot be locked up in a supervisor's office or someone else's office. All of these details must be discussed regularly during mandatory workplace health and safety meetings.

Careful attention must be paid to making new employees aware of health and safety regulations because they must know where catalogues are located and be familiar with all of the products they will be using in the workplace.

What information does the MSDS provide? First of all, it lists dangerous ingredients and, if applicable, toxic products. Second, it details the health and safety risks associated with using the product. Third, it describes product-handling precautions. Fourth, it recommends the first aid to be given in cases of accidental exposure, such as ingestion, skin contact or inhalation.

Anyone who cares about the environment will be careful when disposing of large quantities of these products and will know how to respond appropriately in case of accidental spills in sewer or storm drains or in sensitive environments, such as lakes and reservoirs, wetlands or other vulnerable ecosystems.

Bill S-2 proposes three changes. I have read the speeches given by the senator and other senators during debate in the Senate. I hope that there will be no questions insinuating that I have cribbed from the senators.

Trade secrets represent the first major change. In my opinion, there has to be a certain balance between the right of workers and employers to have complete information about the use of hazardous products and the industry’s right to protect trade secrets, patents, contents and components, which competitors could use to their advantage.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission will therefore have the power to grant exemptions to protect genuine trade secrets of manufacturers and distributors of hazardous products. The commission will review claims for exemption. As well, the required health and safety documents will be filed, and manufacturers will also be asked to provide documents of an economic nature. Those measures will protect the confidentiality of the information and will also eliminate the financial consequences of disclosure of the documents.

The second amendment to the existing act allows for voluntary correction of material safety data sheets and labels where the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission determines that they do not comply with the act. This is a new procedure. There is also a third amendment proposed in the bill, to improve the appeal process.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill S-2 and believes that when it comes to hazardous materials it is crucial to keep worker safety in mind. We also believe that this essential effect must be the basis of all decisions made. The Bloc Québécois notes that there is unanimous support for the amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act set out in Bill S-2 among the members of the commission’s governing council, that is, among the participants I identified earlier: industry, workers and governments.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2 so that the amendments that the leading stakeholders in those groups have called for can be enacted. In everything it does, the Bloc Québécois seeks to protect working men and women, and that is why it has introduced Bill C-257 to ban the use of replacement workers. There is also a bill on preventive reassignment on the order paper, the purpose of which is to provide women in Quebec who work in undertakings under federal jurisdiction with the same benefits in respect of preventive reassignment as other working women in Quebec.

A third bill, Bill C-269, to improve the employment insurance system, is one such law that affects working men and women. I would remind you that the Bloc Québécois also had the throne speech amended to incorporate an income support program for older workers.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill S-2.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the NDP member for Vancouver Island North, for her presentation and clarifications. I especially want to thank her for introducing this anti-scab bill.

As hon. members are aware, last June, the Bloc Québécois, represented by my colleague from Gatineau, introduced Bill C-257 in this House. This bill truly prohibits replacement workers, because the existing Canadian legislation does not.

At present, part III of the Canada Labour Code prohibits replacement workers, but an employer just has to keep negotiating with a union, or pretend to be negotiating, in order to hire as many replacement workers as it wants.

This is the tenth time the Bloc Québécois has introduced an anti-scab bill in this House. Some bills died on the order paper, while others were not votable. The second-last bill was defeated by 18 votes and the last bill, in 2005, by 12 votes. We intend to carry the vote in late October. We will do everything in our power to win it.

This House can see that we are in good shape to win the vote on this bill, because the NDP will support us. Moreover, every Liberal member who has spoken in this House has promised to support us. Things are looking good, and we are confident that our Liberal colleagues will eventually decide as a group, this time publicly and officially, to support both the Bloc Québécois bill and the NDP bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of improving conditions for workers, who make a vital contribution to our society's economic well-being and quality of life. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will support our NDP colleague's bill.

However, because Bill C-257 will be put to a vote first and will pass, we trust that it will not be necessary to hold a second vote on a nearly identical bill. There are slight differences between the two bills, and I would have liked the member for Vancouver Island North to describe them, because our bill seems more comprehensive and appears to cover a greater variety of situations. That said, we support Bill C-295 introduced by the NDP.

The benefits of a bill like this one are well known. Currently, there are two classes of workers in Quebec, one of which falls under the Quebec labour code. They have the right to very effective anti-scab legislation that makes for shorter, less violent disputes and contributes to a more positive work environment. This is perfectly clear because Quebec has had legislation in place since 1977; the facts are obvious.

I would like to cite a few statistics, but one has only to look to see the situation clearly. Anyone who watches TV news reports or reads the newspapers will have noted that over the past 30 years, the longest, most violent, most difficult strikes, those that produce the most arduous labour disputes, are the ones that take place within organizations that fall under federal jurisdiction.

I would like to try to refresh the minister's memory. Vidéotron: an extremely violent strike that lasted 10 months during which many Vidéotron facilities were vandalized. Sécur: more vandalism and another long and difficult dispute that lasted three months.

Cargill: 38 months—that is more than three years. This conflict caused wounds to the community of Baie-Comeau that have yet to heal.

The Radio-Nord Communications strike lasted nearly two years—22 months, to be precise. My favourite—if I can call it that—because it was the most ridiculous of them all, was the labour dispute at radio station CHNC in Bonaventure. It lasted three years. After two years, the 12 replacement workers demanded membership in the union.

Clearly, this is senseless. The replacement worker option leads to just the kind of difficulties and absurd situations as those the Bonaventure radio station experienced. The minister stated his point of view, but I do not agree at all.

The first time that he spoke in this House against the Bloc Québécois' proposed bill, he referred to studies and analyses conducted by the Montreal Economic Institute and the Fraser Institute. Those analyses were strange, to say the least, because they were based on outdated information—the figures were from 1960 to 1999. The studies had been conducted in very large businesses, although the Quebec economy is based primarily on SMEs. There are data much more recent than those of 1999. On the strength of the Fraser Institute study, the Minister of Labour had argued that there was less investing in those provinces that have anti-scab legislation.

We were quick to point out that those two studies made no sense and that investing depends on many other factors besides anti-scab legislation. In any case, the statistics we see do not correspond to this argument.

He found other arguments to justify the fact that he was against the bill. In 1991, the Minister of Labour voted to support an anti-scab bill. I would point out that, at the time, he was a member of the same party, but he had the interests of the workers in his riding at heart. He represents the riding of Jonquière—Alma, which has one of the highest degree of union representation of any riding in Quebec, if not all of Canada.

How is it, then, that he supported anti-scab legislation a few years ago, but he no longer supports it now?

On May 1, 2006, he replied to me in this House that, being theMinister of Labour, he now had to consider the issue from a Canadian perspective. It was very interesting, because he seemed to be in agreement. In his introduction, he said that it was desirable in Quebec, because of its distinct society. I do not agree with that either, because I believe we are a nation. He chose to translate it by "distinct society". Thus, he was saying that Quebec is a distinct society and that anti-scab legislation is part of its traditions, but since he was now a minister, he had to view things from a Canadian perspective.

Is it possible that the Minister of Labour has cashed in his social conscience for a limousine? Would that be possible? I ask the question because it is just too incredible. In 1991, he agreed and today he no longer does because he is the minister.

Does this mean that he would agree if he were a mere MP today? Imagine that the member for Jonquière—Alma, Minister of Labour, truly wishes to defend the interests of the workers in his riding. Then should he not, in caucus and cabinet, seek to convince his colleagues and the ministers of the Conservative Party of the pertinence of an anti-scab bill for which he voted in 1991 and which, he believes, is part of Quebec's traditions? That is what he said last May.

Now he only sees the disadvantages of this legislation. He says it is not based on proof and that it has no advantages. I will not repeat each of his arguments, but it is impossible that there are no advantages. It is impossible that there has been such a law in Quebec for 30 years that has no advantages for workers or for industry. The latter are not complaining and have adapted quite well to this law. I doubt they would go so far as to promote it but they are living quite well with it.

It is an exaggeration to say that there is not a single advantage; it means that it is insignificant.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, replacement workers.

The House may find that it is experiencing a bit of déjà vu, as the House is also considering Bill C-257, a bill with the same title, same principle and same goal. Nonetheless, I am pleased to speak today and address this important labour issue.

I have a bit of a different perspective than most members on labour issues. I grew up in eastern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. The House is familiar with the strife, fighting and the unrest that existed in many former Warsaw Pact countries. The transition to communism brought much upheaval to communities all across eastern Europe. We all had to make significant lifestyle changes while living under its powerful grip. Thankfully, my family came to Canada in the 1960s. We came to a land of peace, social security and balance. I am shaped by my childhood experiences, as we all are, and I do not take the social cohesion and solidarity we enjoy in this country for granted.

Peaceful relations between employers and workers are the norm in Canada. This was the case in the 1960s and it still is today. We must do what we can to ensure that we continue to enjoy social security as well as labour, peace and stability.

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines economy as the state of a country or area in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money. We often equate the economy with finances but it is much more than that. It is a human construct of perimeters that include a whole range of human activities.

A stable economy, in my view, brings with it peace, security and an environment in which people may gain a livelihood. People may work, enjoy leisure time, spend time with families and friends, pursue hobbies and engage in sports, academics or whatever they may choose.

No one should underestimate the influence of the labour movement on our day to day activities and our economy in the above sense. Peace and stability in the labour movement ensures that we may enjoy our lives to the fullest extent possible.

I grew up in an environment where this was not possible because of the power of the Communist dogma and the labour unrest and discontent that it entailed. The tensions were high between the working class and the government. Trust me when I say that this is not a situation in which anyone should want to find himself or herself. That is why I chose to speak today.

An act that restricts replacement workers from being hired during a strike or lockout is important. It is important for workers, for employers and, ultimately, for all Canadians.

Anti-replacement worker legislation is presently on the books in British Columbia and Quebec. This is an important policy for ensuring that rights are respected and all stakeholders are brought to the table. Such legislation may help to end strikes or lockouts sooner. It can help bring people together to make compromises and ensures an end to the work disruption, which comes at a later time.

Anti-replacement worker legislation is about encouraging all players to come together to find common ground and find the solution. A lockout or strike inevitably entails tension, hard feelings and stress between workers and management. We must seize the opportunity to help reduce tensions and bring the parties together on some sort of equal footing.

The principle of this legislation and Bill C-257 allows the Canada Labour Code to be a progressive document. We have a duty as parliamentarians to look after both the interests of workers and employers. We can best do this by respecting human rights, ensuring an inclusive environment and a level playing field for all.

I have spent the last few minutes speaking in support of the principle of the bill. It is unfortunate, though, that the House has to deal with Bill C-295. We already have another legislative proposal, Bill C-257 on the order paper. I question why the hon. member for Vancouver Island North introduced Bill C-295 after an almost identical bill was introduced just 13 days prior to her own bill.

As a result, I question the efficiency of the House having to deal with Bill C-295. It would be much more efficient and more conducive to realize the goal of the legislation if we were to all work together and urge our colleagues to support Bill C-257 which was already on the order paper. This way the House could have spoken with one voice on this matter in a much more focused fashion.

Even the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress want to see one piece of legislation because it means a better chance of something actually getting passed in the House. With anti-replacement legislation already on the order paper, this would have been a once in a lifetime opportunity for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. As she knows, private members do not often get the opportunity to bring the issue that matters to them most to the floor of the House.

As I was lucky to be number eight in the private members' draw, I put a motion on rural route mail delivery before the House. In my view, she could have worked with the member for Gatineau on the replacement worker legislation and introduced another bill or motion on another important issue in her riding. After all, every constituency has several matters that deserve attention. In that way she could have had her anti-replacement worker legislation and addressed another subject of importance to her constituents.

For that reason, I find it very difficult to support Bill C-295. I support the principle but, with another similar bill ahead of it in the queue, Bill C-257, it just does not make sense, from the viewpoint of efficiency, for the House and it is not in the interest of employer-labour relations.

Let us put our support behind workers and employers in a focused fashion and speak with one voice. A legislative proposal of this kind has been before the House several times before. Let us work together in a concrete fashion, like we are urging employers and workers to do, and get Bill C-257 to committee so it can be further studied and we can hear from stakeholders and experts in the field.

I have a riding that is very much engaged with the Canadian economy. A number of head offices and headquarters are located in Oak Ridges—Markham and I have a very low unemployment rate. As a matter of fact, I am pleased to host a business seminar in my riding.

On October 11 in Markham, Public Works and Government Services Canada will be doing a seminar presentation on how to do business with the Government of Canada. I am pleased to host this seminar which would be useful for any enterprise in attempting to promote its goods and services to the Government of Canada.

I congratulate members for raising the issue of replacement workers in the House and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the debates that follow.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 6, 2006 by the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean in relation to the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

I would like to thank the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean for his very thorough presentation, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. government House leader for their contributions on this point. The Chair appreciates greatly the seriousness with which they have approached this matter.

The central issue relates to clause 2 of the bill, which would insert new provisions in section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code allowing the minister to designate investigators who would have the power to verify and report on whether replacement workers were being employed during a strike or lockout.

The key question is whether the designation of these investigators constitutes an authorization for new spending for a distinct purpose. As part of its review of the bill in attempting to find an answer to this question, it is helpful for the Chair to determine whether new functions are being contemplated or whether the functions proposed are already foreseen as being part of the usual workload of existing personnel.

With regard to Bill C-257, the Chair has taken note of the points raised by the hon. members for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Vancouver East, namely that other sections of the Canada Labour Code contain provisions for inspectors, albeit not for investigators. Sections 248 to 251 describe the duties of inspectors who may inquire into employment in any industrial establishment, and in particular, matters relating to wages, hours of work, or conditions of employment.

Do the new provisions proposed in Bill C-257 alter the statutory functions of inspectors so significantly as to require a royal recommendation? The hon. members for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and for Vancouver East made arguments to the contrary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform did not contest those submissions.

Having heard arguments and reviewed the provisions of the parent act that describe the duties of inspectors, the Chair is prepared to conclude that the provisions in Bill C-257 which relate to the designation of investigators by the minister do not constitute an authorization for new spending for a distinct purpose. The functions which are already being performed by inspectors would appear to be reasonably similar to the functions envisaged by Bill C-257.

Therefore, I am prepared to conclude that Bill C-257–in its present form–may continue to be considered by the House of Commons without the need for a royal recommendation.

As the hon. member for Vancouver East has rightly pointed out, BillC-295, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, is very similar in nature to BillC-257 and indeed contains provisions that are identical, particularly with regard to the work to be performed by investigators.

Accordingly, I am prepared to indicate to the House immediately that Bill C-295 does not require a royal recommendation.

As members can appreciate, the determination as to what legislative initiatives require a royal recommendation can be a highly complex exercise. At the outset, the Chair wishes to dispel any notion that there is one set of rules on the royal recommendation for majority government situations and another for minority government situations. The preoccupations of the Chair concerning the royal recommendation may seem to be new, but are well grounded in constitutional principles and will continue to exist regardless of the composition of the House.

As I indicated in my statement to the House on May 31, 2006, the reforms adopted in 2003, the coming into force of which has coincided with the minority situation that has since prevailed, have resulted in more private member's bills being votable, thereby increasing the number of bills with the potential to reach the third reading stage.

In addition, as members have only one opportunity to sponsor an item over the course of a Parliament, the Chair has sought to provide members with ample opportunity to address possible procedural issues in relation to their bills. For these reasons, a number of new practices have been instituted.

Where it seems likely that a bill may need a royal recommendation, the member who has requested to have it drafted will be informed of that fact by the legislative counsel responsible for drafting the bill. A table officer will also send a letter to advise the member that the bill may require a royal recommendation.

The Chair relies on our clerks and on our legislative counsel to make a first determination on what may appear to infringe on this financial initiative of the Crown. Of course, our clerks and legislative counsel are wise in these matters but they are not omniscient. That is why the Chair alerts members when, prima facie, a provision appears to contain a new authority to spend. Members are then expected to rise and explain precisely what these initiatives entail, so that a final judgment may be made.

To reiterate what I indicated on May 31, I would welcome any suggestions from the House, the House leaders or the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on how to improve this process related to the royal recommendation.

In the meantime, to conclude, Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), and Bill C-295 which has the same title, may proceed as they stand, neither requiring a royal recommendation.

Once again, I thank all hon. members for their patience in dealing with this complicated issue.

It being 6:12 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Canada Labour Code

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

moved that Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to table this bill, seconded by my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit strikebreakers, which will end the disparity between the labour codes of Canada and Quebec.

I am proud to table this bill today because many workers in Quebec are victims of the fact that there are two classes of employees in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois has submitted similar bills nine times in the hope of ensuring that workers subject to the Canada Labour Code have the same rights as those subject to the Quebec Labour Code.

During the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois' bill was defeated by only 12 votes. The Bloc hopes that the new Parliament will make it a priority to act in workers' best interests.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)