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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise a point of order in this House. I would like to be allowed to proceed calmly, because this is a matter that has very important consequences for the House and the future of our work.

First, I should say that my comments will pertain to the royal recommendation. Recently, and primarily because of the new context we find ourselves in, with a minority government, the issue of the royal recommendation has become much more important.

What we have to understand is that, in the case of a majority government, since the royal recommendation is considered less indispensable, the government can always rescue a private member's bill by a majority vote of its members. But in the case of a minority government, as the two most recent governments have been, the royal recommendation becomes very important.

When a bill is passed and accepted by the House of Commons, it becomes effective, and the government has no choice but to comply with it. If the bill involves additional expenditures of public funds, you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it could be problematic for the government to allow the House of Commons to commit public funds without executive power. This is a privilege of the executive, the government, not the House of Commons.

However, Bill C-257 introduced by my colleague from Gatineau, which is an anti-scab bill that applies to workers who come under the Canada Labour Code, was initially deemed by the clerk to require a royal recommendation. Mr. Speaker, I know that you intended to review this whole issue in light of the complexity of the implications. You will understand my surprise when I realized that this is the first time in 17 years, during which time 10 such bills have been introduced here in this House, that the anti-scab bill has required a royal recommendation. I therefore checked the record. Mr. Speaker, I looked to your own decisions for material to use in my argument today.

When Bill C-263 was introduced by my former colleague, Roger Clavet, the Speaker said, right here in this House—you were in the chair: “Royal recommendation is particularly important, and as Speaker of the House of Commons, I must say that you have to be extremely careful, and we have to be extremely vigilant, not to commit public moneys under a minority government that could be overturned by a vote in the House of Commons”. Mr. Speaker, you were absolutely right. Except that last year, when Roger Clavet introduced his bill despite that warning—you were well aware of the dangers—you did not ask for royal recommendation for that anti-scab bill, which was exactly the same as the one introduced today.

The clerks told us that two types of expenditures may be considered for royal recommendation. The first is operational expenditures for running departments. The second is statutory expenditures, that is, expenditures automatically incurred upon the implementation of a bill.

Mr. Speaker, according to your clerks, operational expenditures do not require royal recommendation because they are part of the overall cost of running the Government of Canada. Statutory expenditures, on the other hand, require royal recommendation because they are additional expenditures made when the bill is adopted.

In our view, Bill C-257, tabled by my colleague from Gatineau, requires no royal recommendation. No one indicated to my colleague, either at the time his bill was being prepared or at the time it was tabled, that a royal recommendation would be necessary. I understand that he was not told this. Last year, you yourself deemed the bill receivable, and the context was that of a minority government. Nothing has changed in that regard. I therefore assume that everyone believed, at the time of tabling, that no royal recommendation was necessary, and no one required one of my colleague.

Now we are told in mid-course that, as the bill provides for an investigator who may be designated by the Minister of Labour—whom I salute, as he is now present in this chamber—this is a new role, and therefore an expenditure inherent in the bill. So the bill requires a royal recommendation. I point out that the work of a Department of Labour investigator, ordered by the minister, depends on the needs of the situation. Sometimes he works on this, sometimes he investigates that. That is what we call operating expenses, not statutory expenditures.

Since we are passing an antiscab bill, with due respect for the preliminary decision of the clerk, no additional inspector may be hired at the Department of Labour. There are already staff in place to perform this very work, whose job description corresponds in every respect to the investigations that the minister might request. He will not necessarily request them. So this is an expense that is possible, but possible within the operations of the department. Hence there is nothing that requires what we call a royal recommendation.

I checked, and under the Canada Labour Code, labour relations officers have this very mandate. The minister is quite aware of this. He has a certain number of tasks performed by this personnel.

I searched a little further. On March 21, 2005, you yourself rendered a decision in the case of Bill C-331 which provided for negotiations with the Ukrainian community. That bill allocated so-called public money and could have required a spending authority. In your great wisdom, you declared that the bill provided for the conduct of negotiations with the Ukrainian community, and that it could not be established in advance that there would necessarily be costs related to those negotiations. Since a royal recommendation is not necessary for things which may never in fact occur, it was not necessary for section 3 of that bill. It was thus ordered by the great wisdom of the House, your own and that of the clerk, that in the case of a bill which provided for negotiations with the Ukrainian community, it could not be predicted that there would inevitably be costs. Furthermore since the costs generated would not be immediate, they would be operating costs, costs which—according to the clerks—never require royal recommendation. So this is a good decision you made. You have made others that were just as good, about which I would like to speak to you.

On October 29, 2003, in your great wisdom, when examining a bill on restoring the lighthouses of the St. Lawrence, you recognized that:

—when heritage lighthouses are designated, there may be an expenditure of public funds. However, I would characterize those expenditures as falling within departmental operational costs, for which an appropriation would have been obtained in the usual manner. From year to year, such expenditures would vary depending on the condition and number of heritage lighthouse structures and on the effects of weather. Such operational expenditures are covered through the annual appropriation act that Parliament considers and approves.

You spoke wisely when you stated:

Therefore, after listening to the submissions of hon. members and after reviewing my previous ruling and the provisions of this bill, I would conclude that Bill S-14 does not require a royal recommendation.

In your wisdom you recognized that, for this bill, royal recommendation was not required since it involved an operational cost and not a statutory expenditure arising from the bill.

You recognized, for Bill S-14 and a number of bills, that a royal recommendation was not required when the expenditure arising from adoption of the bill was not immediate.

For 17 years, you and your predecessors recognized that the anti-scab bill did not require royal recommendation. Last year, despite your vigilance and warning to the House of Commons, you did not request a royal recommendation for the same bill.

It would not make sense that suddenly, this year, parliamentary law, tradition and rulings no longer apply and that everything has changed.

I have the utmost respect for the role played by the office of the Clerk of the House of Commons. It is to advise and support members, to ensure that they are able to enforce the rules calmly and fairly, and, in the context in which they work, present parliamentary initiatives that will serve their fellow citizens, as my colleague from Gatineau has done.

I know that this idea would not occur to you, but at no time is it the role of the Speaker or the Clerk of the House of Commons to protect the government. You are above the political fray, as we know. You are here to ensure that the rights of all members, including independent members, are respected, and to ensure that we are able to represent our fellow citizens in an atmosphere of complete serenity, comfort and security.

I do not think—based on earlier rulings and the 10 bills tabled that never, after being assessed, needed a royal recommendation, and based on the role of an inspector—that it can be said, today, that this calls for a royal recommendation, when the inspectors exist and are already doing this work, and there is nothing to say that any more inspectors will be needed after this. Nor is there anything to say that the Minister of Labour will be having to order investigation after investigation to enforce an antiscab law.

Based on all these considerations, and relying on your earlier rulings, on the wisdom of the House of Commons, on our desire that our rules be followed and, most importantly, on the fact it is not the job of anyone here, other than the government itself, to protect minority governments—any more than it is the job of the Speaker to support the opposition, other than to ensure that it is able to use the rules properly and do its job—I am certain that in a few days you will deliver a ruling on the antiscab bill. As was the case on 10 occasions in the last 17 years, you will find that this bill does not call for a royal recommendation, that it can be voted on in the House of Commons and come into force to provide the best protection for working men and women covered by the Canada Labour Code, as is the case in Quebec for workers protected by the province’s labour code.

I am certain that the Minister of Labour, who comes from Quebec, is familiar with Quebec's legislation and is not unaware of what is happening there in terms of labour relations, and that you yourself, all of Parliament, our colleagues in the Liberal opposition—who in fact gave us fairly broad support in our first attempt, as our friends in the NDP will certainly do— we will together vote to enact an antiscab bill, legislation that you will allow us to vote on and bring into force because we are in compliance with all of your earlier rulings.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I realize that you have heard from the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, but it is an important point of order so I would also like to make a brief comment. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible because I know that members actually want to get into the substance of the debate about this very important bill.

I want to say that the ruling made about the royal recommendation certainly affects this bill, Bill C-257, but it also will affect the NDP bill being put forward by the member for Vancouver Island North, Bill C-295, which is similar in nature, dealing as it does with anti-scab legislation. It would also, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, require a royal recommendation.

The ruling that was made is in effect being challenged because these two bills are based, as we have heard, on an earlier bill, Bill C-263 from the Bloc, that did not have this issue or this contradiction of the royal recommendation. We did not hear anything from the Table previously. It was not in question. I think this raises some questions and concerns for us about how the bill previously was not considered to be a problem in terms of a royal recommendation and yet this bill and the NDP bill will now have problems in terms of needing one.

In fact, I would point out that subclauses 2(2.5) through to 2(2.9) in Bill C-257 and Bill C-295 are exactly the same as the previous bill in the former Parliament, Bill C-263, which was debated and voted on without any mention of the royal recommendation. We believe that there is no need for any part of these bills to have a royal recommendation and we believe that the Table and the Speaker got it right in the 38th Parliament.

I would go on to add that even if the first ruling was wrong and this one was right, there is the additional issue that under the labour department, HRSD Canada employs personnel. They are funded from their existing budgets as authorized by the House to monitor compliance and initiate prosecutions when there are serious contraventions of the Canada Labour Code.

I fail to see why those people would not be able to do the work which we are referring to in subclauses 2(2.5) to 2(2.9) of the bill before us today. Really, it is a question of logic. Surely someone who monitors compliance and initiates prosecutions for contraventions of the Canada Labour Code is also able to ascertain if there is compliance to a ban on the use of scabs in a legal strike that extends from a collective bargaining situation.

We fail to see the difference in terms of work which would currently happen under the Labour Code and for which there is authority from the minister, the department and budgetary expenditures. Why would it be any different for the provisions of this bill? Both would involve the same skills and the same basic law.

We believe that the House can decide on the question of a ban on scabs without having to get into the question of how a minister or deputy minister manages their staff. The resources to do a job are already there. Therefore, we believe that Parliament does not need to re-authorize the expenditure even if there is some change in the scope of the duties.

For that reason alone, I would suggest that a royal recommendation is not required for any of the provisions of Bill C-257 or Bill C-295, which will also be debated in the House. I would hope that the Speaker and the Table would agree to stick by their earlier understanding of the former bill, which was not a problem and was not challenged. We are very concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, and we would ask you to consider it.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I think economy of speech is a condition which has never affected my two hon. colleagues.

Let me say that the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean has raised a number of interesting precedents for the Chair to consider.

Mr. Speaker, the government is content to leave the matter in your capable hands for a final decision.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their submissions on this matter.

The Chair will certainly take into account every point made. I have to say that the ruling I made a few days ago concerning bills possibly requiring a royal recommendation was solely intended to express the Chair's concern about such bills. The purpose of that ruling was not to insist that a royal recommendation actually be requested.

I greatly appreciate the points that have been made on this matter by the hon. members. I will take them into consideration and come back to the House with a ruling.

I must also add that, normally, rulings on such matters are not made following the third reading of this kind of bill. As everyone here knows by now, bills may be considered up to the end of report stage and be voted on at each of the stages up to that point. It is only at third reading of a bill for which a royal recommendation was not obtained that a vote may not be taken in the House.

Given the current situation, the Chair will be making a ruling on this bill, probably before the beginning of third reading, which will likely take place within a few months.

We may now resume debate. The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to again present Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

The Bloc Québécois has made it a duty to present this anti-scab legislation for the tenth time. There should no longer be two categories of workers in Quebec, namely, those governed by the Canada Labour Code, which allows the use of scabs, and those governed by the Quebec Labour Code, which does not.

Before addressing the fundamental issue, I would be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous efforts of my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who has been rigorously and admirably defending the rights of workers ever since her arrival in the House of Commons in June 2004. I would also like to thank the unions of the Outaouais, especially Dino Lemay and Donald Roy of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, or FTQ, Michel Quijada, of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, and Daniel Charron, of the Conseil régional d'action politique de l'Outaouais of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, for their support in this endeavour. I would also like to thank Hassan Yussuf of the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC, in connection with the tabling of Bill C-257 at first reading on May 4, 2006.

This bill is designed to put an end to the inequity between workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code and those governed by the Canada Labour Code. Only Quebec and British Columbia have legislation prohibiting the use of scabs. Four provinces, including Ontario, however, already have anti-scab provisions in their labour codes.

Let us recall that Mike Harris’s Conservative Ontario government, three of whose ministers may be found in today’s federal cabinet, shamefully legalized the use of scabs again.

In Quebec, the adoption of an anti-scab law goes back to December 1977, under René Lévesque’s Parti Québécois government. Getting his government to adopt this anti-scab legislation guaranteeing respect for workers was an impressive leap forward.

Coming at the end of a particularly tumultuous strike at the United Aircraft factory in Longueuil, this legislation, by seriously hindering employers who could not care less about their unionized employees, placed Quebec in the North American vanguard in this area.

Anti-scab legislation will be good for all workers, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the provinces and territories.

In New Brunswick, union leaders have already been asking for some time for anti-scab provisions in their labour code. Likewise in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the unions are trying to convince their New Democratic governments to adopt such measures.

In federal legislation, section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code contains a prohibition respecting replacement workers, but only if an employer uses them with a view to undermining the union’s representational capacity.

This prohibition is very weak, because an employer simply has to go on recognizing the union in place and go on negotiating to avoid undermining the union’s representational capacity and it is entitled to use replacement workers.

In other words, if an employer refuses to negotiate while using replacement workers, the Canada Industrial Relations Board can prohibit their use. But all an employer has to do is negotiate or appear to be negotiating with the union to avoid this prohibition and go on using scabs. So we can see that this is a ridiculous provision and provides a loophole allowing the use of scabs.

The prohibition respecting the hiring of replacement workers during a labour dispute is therefore more necessary than ever.

This is why: to diminish picket-line violence, foster a fair balance in the negotiations between employers and employees, reduce the legal proceedings that arise during strikes and lockouts, and mitigate the bitterness felt by employees when they return to work. There is also a very broad consensus among different unions about the importance of antiscab legislation. It is essential in the current workplace because it provides greater transparency in case of labour disputes. This bill will not entail any expenditures for the government.

With this in mind, the current situation under the Canada Labour Code—allowing the use of replacement workers—means that there are very negative consequences during strikes and lockouts. There are a lot of negative effects, and they alone demonstrate how important it is to bring forward dispute-reduction measures. The premise is that labour disputes last longer when scabs are used. This causes a reduction in the purchasing power of workers directly or indirectly involved in the dispute and results in households going into debt. In some cases, disputes can cause social problems, sometimes very violent, as well as stress-related psychological problems.

To provide a few examples of the benefits of the Quebec legislation, here are figures showing how antiscab legislation could have positive effects on the work climate and the negotiating climate between employers and employees.

In 1976 before antiscab legislation was passed in Quebec, the average number of working days lost was 39.4. In 1979, after the act was passed, the average was 32.8 days, and in 2001 it was 27.4 days. This clearly shows that dispute settlements are quicker and fairer when employers and unions negotiate under the same constraints. The proof is there.

Unfortunately, the Canada Labour Code still allows the use of scabs in Quebec, with the result that there have been labour disputes that demonstrate how urgent it is to pass this bill. Take the case of Vidéotron.

After getting the approval of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in May 2001, Quebecor acquired the cable operator Vidéotron with the help of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. In order to clear up some financial problems related to the acquisition, Quebecor undertook a downsizing process shortly thereafter that was supposed to produce annual savings of $35 to $40 million in its cable subsidiary.

Some people thought that the confrontation between Quebecor and the 2,200 employees and technicians of the cable company was the last great step in this grand rationalization process.

The 2,200 Vidéotron employees were on strike and locked out from May 8, 2002 until March 2003. The use of replacement workers resulted in many acts of vandalism against Vidéotron facilities.

The same thing happened at Sécur. After 99% of the workers voted against the employer's offers, 900 employees went on strike on July 5, 2002.

When the strike was called, Sécur held 75% of the valuables transport market in Quebec with an annual turnover of $55 million. For instance, it delivered cash to 1,200 of the 6,000 ATMs in Quebec, a job which was taken over by replacement workers.

The situation deteriorated in late August. Striking Sécur employees vandalized ATMs by spraying them with urethane foam. The dispute ended on October 9, 2002, but not without leaving a very bitter taste in the mouths of everyone concerned.

The long labour disputes at Vidéotron and Sécur had several points in common.

These were lengthy disputes in sectors governed by the Canada Labour Code, where the use of scabs is permitted. The work stoppages at Vidéotron and Sécur were marked by acts of violence and vandalism.

The use of violence and vandalism will never be justified and labour representatives should condemn these acts. Nonetheless, the sense of powerlessness and not seeing an end in sight to the strike or lockout pushes some people to commit serious and illegal acts. This resulted in cables being severed at Vidéotron and ATMs being plugged up with urethane foam at Sécur.

The writing is on the wall. The current Canada Labour Code does not contain the conditions required to allow a true climate of equal negotiations between the employer and the union.

The Bloc Québécois has always been first to defend the workers of Quebec and the rest of Canada. We have tabled a similar bill nine times in order to end the inequity. During the last Parliament, the bill was defeated by only 12 votes at second reading.

Today, anything is possible. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois told its constituents that it was working to improve their living conditions and their quality of life. This was one of my strongest commitments. I call on all hon. members to support this bill in order to make it a priority to improve the living conditions of workers everywhere.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Bloc for bringing forward amendments to the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of replacement workers. The bill has a lot of support in the NDP caucus. In fact, we put forward a similar motion and we hope we can have some discussion on how we can amend the bill to make it even stronger.

I am from British Columbia and the member mentioned in his remarks that British Columbia is one of the provinces that has anti-scab legislation. He probably knows that in 2001 the provincial government opened up the labour code, a labour code that was put in place by labour, business and a then NDP government in pre-2001, that had many good articles for workers.

When the government opened up that bill, it changed a lot of things but it did not change the anti-scab portion of the labour code because it works. We know the use of strikebreakers prolongs labour disputes. We saw that with the recent TELUS dispute. Using strikebreakers also poisons the work atmosphere and it takes many years to get over that. When workers are pitted against one another it puts a strain on the workplace and can cost a lot of money.

I live in a place where the use of strikebreakers has poisoned family relations over a long period of years. Some family members have not spoken to each other for decades because of strikes and the use of some family members as scabs in the mines of Cumberland. If this bill were in place it would eliminate that sort of thing.

This anti-scab bill would be good for workers, good for business and good for the economy. Perhaps the member could expand a little more on the economic benefits derived from the ban on scabs.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: the simple fact that disputes do not last as long enables employers and employees to reach solutions more quickly.

There is also the issue of security, among others. When the parties negotiate as equals, the workers know that they are on strike and do not have any income. The same holds true for management, for the employers. At that point, the two parties are on an equal footing and the negotiations are transparent.

This also avoids legal action. If the parties are in a position where there is less violence or no violence, where violence is avoided simply because the parties negotiate honestly, then they work to find a solution that suits both sides.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for my Bloc Québécois colleague. First, he referred to a number of people who were apparently involved in drafting this bill. He spoke only of union representatives. Were people other than union representatives also involved? Did people from the management side have an opportunity to suggest approaches, developments or ways to proceed?

Second, he says that statistics show that disputes do not last as long when there are anti-scab laws. Yet according to the large amount of information I have here, a strike lasts an average of 32 days longer and the risk of a strike is 12% higher as in the case of Nikitin & Baud. I have a lot of other information that does not necessarily corroborate his data. We are talking about people who are very well known in industrial relations, labour relations and union-management relations. Was this information also taken into account when the bill was drafted?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I thank my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker. First, in Quebec in 1967, the employers' council never stood in the way of the bill that was passed. One thing is for sure: both on the management side and on the labour side in Quebec, people agree that, ever since the Quebec Labour Code has been in force, there is much greater social peace during labour disputes and strikes than there was before this legislation was passed to ban replacement workers.

One has to try to imagine the scene whenever replacement workers cross picket lines. Simply evoking this is already enough to give rise to feelings of unacceptable conflict. In a civilized society, people who have a dispute to settle have to settle it in the best conditions and with transparency. Both parties must be able to negotiate equitably, using the same set of rules. Then, and only then, the striker does not make any money, but neither does the employer. That way, they can come to an agreement much more quickly than when the workers see replacement workers cross their picket lines, ensuring that the employer continues to make money.

That is the kind of situation we want to prevent. We want to create a climate of social peace. In Quebec, the employers' council never questioned Quebec's anti-scab legislation. This was one good thing that was done in Quebec in terms of social peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau and the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for their commitment in this discussion and in the matter of the antiscab legislation.

This is my first opportunity as Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to speak on a private member’s bill concerning the department I represent, namely the antiscab legislation we are discussing this evening.

So I am pleased today to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on this important labour policy issue.

Anyone familiar with labour relations in Canada knows how devastating a labour dispute can be, both for the employer and employees and for their families.

It is in that context that we must examine this issue as a whole. Is it better, in fact, to have anti-scab legislation in Canada, or not?

We have to look at things from the national perspective. I remind my colleagues that such a law has existed in Quebec since 1977, and also in British Columbia since 1993. In 29 years, however, only two provinces in Canada have seen fit to bring in antiscab legislation—only two provinces in 29 years.

There is a reason for that. Provinces have considered this unhealthy; they have felt that introducing such a legislation did not create balance in the workplace. Lengthy strikes and lockouts can damage—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to be able to make my presentation without hearing all sorts of comments. I respected the hon. members earlier, and I would also like to be able to provide explanations to those listening to us on television. This debate is important, and it is important that people be familiar with the issues.

So, lengthy strikes and lockouts can do enormous damage to Canadian workers, their families and communities. When they happen, the economy of the country suffers.

Hardworking Canadians want a context in which the rules are fair when a dispute arises with their employer. That is why we have to find the balance—I return to this idea of balance between the rights and responsibilities of employers, unions and employees.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code offers a solid system of checks and balances which permits all the parties to resolve their disputes in the context they require. It deals with this matter of antiscab legislation. The Labour Code has three parts, with Part II devoted to occupational health and safety and Part III to labour standards.

Banning the use of replacement workers would make the rules of the game unequal.

Bill C-257 would amend the Canada Labour Code by prohibiting all use of replacement workers anywhere in Canada. Prohibiting their use is not the solution.

I have at hand examples of places in Canada where there is antiscab legislation and where disputes have gone on a very long time. I give you the example of the Syndicat des travailleurs de Mine Noranda and the Noranda-Horne smelter, where 500 employees went on strike in June 2002 and stayed on strike for 11 months, despite the antiscab legislation.

The strike at the Société des alcools du Québec, affecting 3,800 employees, began in November 2004 and lasted three months, despite said legislation.

More recently, the strike involving the workers at Laurenco, Moulins Maple Leaf Ltée and the Syndicat des Métallos has gone on for over a year, since March 2, 2005, despite said legislation.

The lockout involving the Lallemand employees and the CSN, which began three months ago, is also still going on.

So I repeat that Bill C-257, which would prevent the use of replacement workers, is not the solution since it would upset the balance.

Moreover, I would like to dispel today the myth that the use of replacement workers prolongs labour disputes. In fact, a recent independent study refuted the idea that the use of replacement workers prolongs disputes or creates violence on the picket lines. The study clearly shows that the fact of prohibiting the use of replacement workers leads to longer labour disputes that are increasingly destabilizing.

These observations discredit the theory that the use of replacement workers gives rise to more frequent and longer strikes in Canada. The opposite is true. Recent studies show that, where there is anti-scab legislation, disputes last 32 days longer than where there is no such legislation.

As the members know, labour legislation in Canada was amended not too long ago. The Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999, just seven years ago, in order to modernize our legislation and improve collective bargaining. Every day we can see the advantages of the amendments and improvements made. Furthermore, these amendments were the result of lengthy consultations among stakeholders in the labour world. The exercise included a study conducted by Andy Sims, a former labour board chair.

The question of replacement workers was studied at length and with care at the time of the consultations and the debate in the House of Commons. During the consultations, the workers’ and employers’ representatives were able to reach agreement on a number of reforms when the legislation was amended. Still, it quickly became clear that there were two opposing camps on the issue of replacement workers. The members of the Sims task force were also unsuccessful in reaching a consensus on this thorny issue.

The current provisions respecting replacement workers in part I of the Labour Code in a way implement the recommendations that were supported by the majority of the members of the Sims task force. These provisions prohibit the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage if such use undermines the union’s ability to represent its members. This is regarded as an unfair labour practice. When a representative, employee or member of the union finds that replacement workers were used to undermine their representational capacity, they can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Then the complaint is analysed immediately by the CIRB.

The current provision is relatively new—it is only seven years old. We are still monitoring its effectiveness. That said, I can assure you that parties undertaking collective bargaining in Canada under part I of the Canada Labour Code have accepted this approach as a reasonable compromise.

We must consider another important principle. Let us go back to the negotiations I mentioned earlier. Some say that the employer's right to lock out employees offsets the union's right to strike, but that is not the case. The employer's right to continue operating during a strike corresponds to the employees' right not to go to work. The current provision in the code aims to balance the interests of both parties.

With respect to strikes, about 97% of all collective agreements under federal jurisdiction renewed in 2005-06 were signed without a work stoppage. This is a clear indicator of the health of our economy and the effectiveness of the code.

In closing, I would like to remind the members that since this legislative provision was adopted by this House in 1999, 18 grievances have been submitted to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Thirteen were withdrawn, three were rejected, and two are still being examined. This sounds like balance to me.

Although unions are exerting a lot of pressure, I do not think we should respond immediately. We have to consider both sides. That is what happens now under the act adopted in 1999, which creates the best balance between workers, employers and employees.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of presenting arguments to the members of this House I hope will convince some of them to support Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Despite the remarks by the Minister of Labour, I want to congratulate him for coming and presenting his arguments himself or rather his officials' arguments, I should say.

The rights attached to the workplace have always been important to Canadian families. Work is a source of pride and dignity for workers. No one likes being replaced in cavalier fashion. No one likes feeling left out and no one wants to stay on the picket lines for weeks.

Harmonious relations between workers and employers is also essential. A dragged out dispute poisons relations, slows the return to work and dampens employee enthusiasm. A strike is never desirable, but a strike that becomes confrontation can leave wounds for many years.

For all these reasons and many more, we must support an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of replacement workers, or strikebreakers, during strikes and lockouts.

First off, a careful read of the Canada Labour Code reveals the following at the start:

—there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes;

The use of strikebreakers or replacement workers is in direct contradiction with the preamble. As I will show, this omission in our Canada Labour Code makes a significant difference in the number of days lost for our workers and for businesses in Canada.

In addition, this bill is fundamentally important because it will serve to protect Canadian workers who come under the Canada Labour Code. It will, most importantly, mean an end to the categorization of Canadian workers, because according to their province or type of work, they may or may not be protected by similar legislation on the use of strikebreakers.

Indeed, this means we have two categories of workers in Canada and that is not acceptable for a country that respects the rule of law. Canada is a defender of human rights internationally, but in its own backyard it has a hard time imposing standard working conditions that are fair to all its workers. This situation is unacceptable.

The purpose of Bill C-257 is to amend the Canada Labour Code by putting an end to the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts. There is an important point we must understand. The use of strikes by employees is a legally recognized means to settle a disagreement with the employer, just as lockouts are a recognized means for the employer. The problem is that strikes become meaningless when the employer uses replacement workers. One could say that the employer has an incomparable advantage in the negotiation process. This process, which should be approached on a level playing field, currently gives the advantage to the employer.

What is the advantage? It is being able to hire replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. This situation takes away some of the negotiating power from labour representatives.

This strong bargaining position of the companies undermines the negotiating process with the workers since the use of replacement workers provokes anger on the picket lines, which can lead to violence, especially when buses—often escorted by police—try to cross the picket lines.

In such a context, it is not uncommon for vehicles to hit and injure legally demonstrating union workers. The employer has an unfair advantage in dragging out the negotiations since it makes a profit on the lower salaries it pays the replacement workers.

This situation contributes to diminishing the capacity of the striking workers to reach a negotiated agreement that responds fairly to their claims.

Consequently, replacing workers who are defending their rights on the picket line does not bode well for harmonious future labour relations between the parties.

Including a provision in the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of scabs would prevent work disruptions that are needlessly long or even simply needless in vital sectors of Canada's economy.

For purposes of comparison, 93% of workers in Quebec are covered by Quebec's labour legislation. Consequently, there is no reason why 7% of workers in Quebec should not be covered by the Canada Labour Code. There cannot be two classes of citizens in Canada. As well, statistics show that having an anti-scab law helps reduce the number of days lost because of labour disputes, despite what our colleague from Louis-Hébert said. The average work time lost from 1992 to 2002 is 15.9 days for workers who come under the Quebec Labour Code and 31.1 days for workers subject to the Canada Labour Code. That represents a difference of 95.6% in days of work lost. Those lost days represent a lot of money for companies and for Canadian workers.

Another interesting statistic justifies an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. In 2002, even though workers under federal jurisdiction made up 6.6% of the labour force in Quebec, they accounted for 48% of the days lost because of labour disputes. Third, the number of days lost per 1,000 employees from 1999 to 2002 is 121.3 for workers covered by the Quebec Labour Code, compared to 266.3 for workers subject to the Canada Labour Code. This is a huge difference: 145 more days of work lost. It can be attributed largely to the use of scabs.

Of course, Quebec is not the only province with such a labour law. As was mentioned earlier, British Columbia passed a similar law in 1993, which reduced strike days to levels comparable to those in Quebec. It also resulted in a 50% drop in the ratio of time lost. Similar anti-scab legislation is producing remarkable results.

Ontario adopted anti-scab legislation in 1992, but scrapped it a few years later following a change in government. Despite the rhetoric spouted by opponents, there were fewer work stoppages, union demands were more moderate and there was less agitation on picket lines during the period in which this legislation was in effect.

I would now like to give a specific, although not unique, example: Vidéotron in Quebec, which my colleague from Gatineau has already mentioned. We could not forget this labour dispute that lasted more than 10 months. The dispute affected more than 2,200 employees of the cable company, who were on strike or locked out from May 2002 to March 2003. This long labour dispute deteriorated and one of the major causes of the deterioration was the use of scabs. Because of the company's action, people committed acts of vandalism to company property. If such a law had been in effect, that vandalism likely would not have taken place, since frustrations would not have mounted so high.

I could give other examples. We need only think of the recent labour disputes involving CBC, TELUS, Sécur Desjardins, Cargill and Radio-Nord. These disputes illustrate the damage that can be caused by the lack of such protection within our labour legislation.

We must bear in mind the human factor, above all, in this legislation. Yes, this factor must be considered, because the feeling of not being respected by an employer who chooses to use scabs undermines the morale of workers. Depending on the length of the dispute, this can lead to family problems and household debt that could have been avoided.

Of course, I could go on at length, for several hours even. It is the government's duty to implement measures to ensure that the atmosphere of labour relations is fair and equal across Canada.

In conclusion, anti-scab legislation is crucial, because it will allow for greater transparency and fairness in the resolution of labour disputes. This is why I rose to speak in the House today, to defend the interests of all Canadian workers.

I ask the House to promote the well-being of our citizens at work by supporting Bill C-257.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today as the labour critic for the NDP to speak in support of the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois. We are very happy that this bill is in the House. Indeed, I seconded the bill, as did many of my colleagues in the NDP. As the member from the Bloc has said, this is a repeat effort to bring this very important issue forward in Parliament to ensure that the rights of workers are secured in this country where they are federally regulated.

I want to say on behalf of the NDP we understand that freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike are fundamental labour rights in Canada. In fact, these are hard won rights that historically workers have died for in some cases. The issue in the bill we are debating today is fundamental and central to the rights of workers in Canada, and that is the use of strikebreakers.

Labour rights are a human right. Workers have the right to withhold their services if collective bargaining fails. Fair wages, a safe workplace, pay equity, health care and pensions are all hard fought achievements of the labour movement and collective bargaining. However, there is still a glaring omission, and that is that there is no adequate federal provision to ensure that the use of replacement workers or strikebreakers is banned in this country.

I heard the Minister of Labour earlier today raise the question as to whether this proposed bill is good. Yes or no, he asked. He went on to point out that workers want to have rules that are fair. He said that we need to strike a balance between the rights of employers and the rights of unions. I have to ask the minister, is it fair when members of a union have legally gone on strike, they should have their right to strike completely undermined by the use of strikebreakers? I do not think this is a fair situation whatsoever. There is nothing balanced about that. There is nothing that is balanced in the favour of workers.

In fact, the provisions presently in the Canada Labour Code are very inadequate. If they were adequate, we would not be debating this bill today.

We have to be very clear that we are dealing with the fundamental issue of the rights of workers and the fact that when workers go on a legal strike, they have an expectation and a right to assume that the rules will be fair and balanced. We believe it is very important that federal legislation affecting workers under federal jurisdiction acknowledge the right to expect that strikebreakers will not be allowed.

We have already heard that in British Columbia and Quebec this legislation is working in the provincial jurisdictions. We can point out very clearly that when legislation like this is in place, we actually see an environment that produces labour stability. The government in British Columbia is not a progressive government. It is a centre right government, yet it understands that this provision in the B.C. labour code is something it would not dare touch because it has brought stability to the workplace in British Columbia.

By contrast, the very nasty TELUS labour dispute and the lockout of TELUS workers went on month after month in B.C. This was a huge issue. One of the reasons it went on for so long is that those workers were under federal regulation and there was nothing to protect them from the use of strikebreakers, contracting out and out sourcing jobs. It made the strike go on much longer.

There is also the example of Vidéotron in Quebec. There is the example of the CBC. I would add another one.

Last weekend I was very fortunate to travel to Yellowknife to participate with members of PSAC and the Union of Northern Workers who have now been on strike for about 60 days against a huge multinational corporation, BHP, which has refused to negotiate in good faith. One of the big issues in that strike in Yellowknife is the use of contractors, which really are replacement workers or strikebreakers.

Again we see an example where workers have legally gone on strike. In this case they are trying very hard to get a first collective agreement. They are up against a massive multinational corporation, the Australian BHP Billiton that had worldwide profits of $7.5 billion in 2005. This is a very powerful corporation. What tools do these workers have to ensure that they get a fair collective agreement if they are constantly being undermined in their right to strike by the use of what the employer calls contractors but in effect are strikebreakers?

That is a very recent example of where if there were adequate provisions in the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated workers, we would be protecting the rights of those workers at the diamond mine in the Northwest Territories. I want to congratulate the member for Western Arctic for the strong stand he has taken to uphold these very fundamental rights of the members of the Union of Northern Workers, Local 3050. They are taking on a very difficult struggle.

I would love to be able to say that this legislation is going to go through so that we can ensure that the kind of situation that is taking place in that strike in the Northwest Territories does not have to be repeated in any other situation where federal regulation occurs.

I want to make one other point. Clearly, 100% of the members of the NDP will be supporting Bill C-257. In fact, I mentioned Bill C-295 earlier which is our own bill against strikebreaking. The member for Vancouver Island North has brought that bill forward. We will be debating that bill also. We want Bill C-257 to go to committee. We want discussions to take place to strengthen the bill. The Canadian Labour Congress has a very intensive campaign under way. The NDP will be participating in that campaign. I want to say that we are going to get this bill through.

It was such a huge disappointment and quite appalling that in the last Parliament virtually the same bill was lost by less than a dozen votes. Members in the House had better be aware that there will be a very active campaign undertaken on this bill for anti-scab legislation.

I heard the member from the Liberal Party. Of course the Bloc will support the bill because it is the Bloc's bill. The NDP will support the bill. There were Conservative members in the last Parliament who supported the bill. We are hoping very much that members of the Liberal caucus will also support this bill.

We have this opportunity in this Parliament to actually do something that will make a real difference in the lives of workers and protect their rights. Passage of the bill would actually produce a stability and a benefit for the whole community and the economy.

We are very glad that this issue is before the House today. We want Bill C-257 to go through as quickly as possible. We want to encourage individual members of Parliament to be open to factual, objective information, instead of taking an ideological position. We want members to look at this bill on its real merits and how it actually supports labour management industrial relations stability. That is the evidence that is before us, despite what the Minister of Labour told us today.

This type of legislation has been in effect in Quebec since 1977. It has been in effect in British Columbia since 1993. It has actually helped to produce stability. If we can manage to get this bill through the House for those workers under federal jurisdiction, then we should be leading the way to say to other provinces that they should be bringing in similar legislation at the provincial level.

In closing, the NDP is happy this bill is being debated. I would encourage members to support the bill. The bill is very important. We want this bill to be enacted and have a majority of support in the House. We were so close the last time. We want to make sure that the bill passes this time and goes to committee so that we can have a discussion. We can look at amendments, but to support the bill in principle is something that is very important. The NDP caucus will support the bill 100%.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this anti-strikebreaking bill, but at the same time, it makes me somewhat uncomfortable to have to address this issue once again. This is not the first time that the Bloc Québécois brings in a bill to protect the rights of workers. As far as I am concerned, that issue should have been resolved years ago.

I will clarify one point for the benefit of the labour minister. First, the Minister of Labour is from a riding with the greatest number of unionized workers in Canada, if I am not mistaken. I would just like to respond briefly to the minister. The studies cited by the minister were commissioned by right-wing organizations. Any study by the Montreal Economic Institute or the Fraser Institute invariably tends to support the interests of management and to back the employers. Also, the study on the duration of labour disputes was based on figures from 1967 to 1993. Talk about old figures. These were provided by very large corporations, but no SMEs. As we know, however, Quebec's economy is more SME based. In a word, these studies have to be taken with a grain of salt.

At this point, I would also like to introduce some statistics. The average number of work days lost in Quebec, between 1992 and 2002, by workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code was 15.9 days. The average for those governed by the Canada Labour Code was 31.1 days, or almost double.

Between 1992 and 2002—these are recent figures—in Quebec, the number of days lost per 1,000 employees governed by the Quebec Labour Code was 121.3 days; for those governed by the Canada Labour Code, 266.3 days were lost. That is substantial.

Therefore, all arguments are in favour of adopting this bill as soon as possible.

This anti-scab legislation will prohibit the use of strikebreakers or replacement workers during a labour dispute. The objective of the bill is to harmonize the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code.

We know that Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. There is no question that Quebec's legislation has helped Quebec move forward in terms of labour relations, in addition to reducing the duration of labour disputes, curbing violence during strikes and lockouts and, particularly, improving the working environment. It is not easy going through a strike or lockout. I will not add any other arguments as they were presented by my colleague from Gatineau.

The adoption of anti-scab measures will put an end to the existence of two categories of workers: workers falling under Quebec jurisdiction and workers in companies under federal jurisdiction.

At present, federal regulations are inadequate. Everyone agrees. The very vague provisions of the Canada Labour Code limit the use of strikebreakers, but this is by no means enough. The Bloc Québécois tabled a petition with over 46,000 signatures supporting the position of workers and calling on the government to adopt measures that will prohibit the use of replacement workers.

At the moment, only British Columbia and Quebec have legislative measures preventing the use of strikebreakers. Four provinces, including Ontario, have had anti-strikebreaking measures in their respective labour codes.

However, there was a strong consensus among the various unions about anti-strikebreaking measures, in the case of employees under provincial jurisdiction and for those under federal jurisdiction.

Anti-strikebreaking legislation is essential in the work world of today because it truly recognizes the workers' right to strike and establishes a better balance between employees and employers.

In New Brunswick, the union leaders have for awhile been calling for additional anti-strikebreaking measures in their provincial labour code. The same thing is happening in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the unions are trying to convince their governments to adopt such measures.

In recent years, certain strikes and lockouts have led to an upsurge in violence by employees facing replacement workers. We need only think of the 2,200 Vidéotron workers, who, after replacement workers were hired in a dispute in 2002, committed acts of vandalism against Vidéotron facilities.

All of these disputes—for there have been many of them—have several points in common. In all cases, they were long disputes in sectors where the workers are governed by the Canada Labour Code and where the use of strikebreakers is permitted.

The Vidéotron dispute lasted over 10 months; the Sécur dispute, three months; and the Cargill dispute, 38 months. Finally, at Radio-Nord work stopped for 20 months.

Half of these labour disputes were marked by acts of vandalism and violence. I want to be clear that recourse to violence and vandalism is never justified, and must be condemned by workers’ representatives in no uncertain terms. However, the feeling of being powerless and of not seeing the end of the strike or lockout inevitably drives some workers to reprehensible and illegal acts. For the Bloc Québécois, this is a worrisome situation which finds its solution in the measure proposed today, this anti-strikebreaker bill.

Since 1995, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to get a bill passed that would prevent the hiring of individuals to replace striking or locked out employees in companies governed by the Canada Labour Code and striking employees in the federal public service. If the Bloc Québécois, supported by the largest labour federations in Quebec and Canada, continues to fight for the passage of such a bill, it is because action is urgently needed to amend the federal labour code as quickly as possible and mitigate all the negative effects of a strike or lockout.

In conclusion, I will recall a few figures of which I spoke earlier. We have seen there is a very high average in the case of employees governed by the Canada Labour Code, and a much lower average in the case of employees governed by the Quebec Labour Code.

I will close by saying that this bill would put an end to two categories of workers: those governed by the Quebec Labour Code and those governed by the Canada Labour Code.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time provided for the consideration of private members’ business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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.

[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%.

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[An hon. member]

It is true.

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

I expected him to come and tell us today that it is the environmentalists' fault, but in the end he did not show up and nor did the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Not only did he not come here to explain his arguments, he did not even explain them to FTQ officials from the Outaouais region, who wanted to meet with him. He did not even agree to meet with them. Not only does he not want to debate the issue, he does not want to meet these people, and he does not even return their calls. This means that their arguments are either too weak or shameful. That would be surprising, but who knows.

The benefits of such an act can be seen in Quebec, where millions of workers have been protected by such legislation for the past 30 years. We can even provide numbers. In fact, my colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau, will give some very relevant and accurate figures. But we do not need numbers to see what we are seeing, to hear what we are hearing, and to show how effective Quebec's antiscab legislation has been over the past 30 years. It is just common sense.

I invite all members of all parties—and especially members of the government party—to face the facts and vote for their constituents, for their workers, not for their leaders who subscribe to a neo-conservative ideology and too often side with a few company executives instead of with the people. What is important is the human factor.

I see that I have only a minute left, and that is too bad, because I wanted to talk about all the people throughout Quebec and Canada who have mobilized to support this bill. Obviously, the CLC is behind this bill, but so are the FTQ, the CSN and the CSD. They are working and will continue to work very hard to convince the members of this House of the benefits of this bill.

I would also like to talk about Monique Allard of Quebec City, who is getting people to sign petitions, because she really believes in this legislation. There is also Mario Elrick of the CMOU, the Canadian Marine Officers' Union in St. Catharines, who is doing an outstanding job as well. They believe in this legislation. The minister should talk to them instead of to the Montreal Economic Institute or the Fraser Institute, which feed him arguments that do not stand up and that he does not dare repeat here.

I say that we should give this bill a chance in second reading so that it can be discussed in committee.

From the witnesses who appear, we will hear the most intelligent, most brilliant arguments and the experiences people have had. We will also hear all kinds of arguments, including those of the right-wing think tanks of the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the last two speakers.

Someone talked to me about the Bathurst hotel. I would like to inform my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst that that hotel is not under federal jurisdiction. What we are talking about here is federal legislation. I found his example a bit strange. It is as though, by adopting federal legislation for federal companies, we ended up adopting anti-scab legislation applying from coast to coast to coast, in all provinces.

There is a problem here. It is as if the Canadian government decided to encroach on provincial jurisdiction by imposing anti-scab legislation on all of Canada.

Let us make no mistake. Our friend from Acadie—Bathurst talked about the Bathurst hotel. I do not see how that hotel could fall under federal jurisdiction or how it could be seen as a federal company. I would not want to speculate, but I think that that was the hon. member's example.

Following that, they talk about statistics. Every month, when I see the statistics from Radio-Canada, I notice that the unemployment rate in Quebec is from 1% to 1.5% higher than the average for all of Canada. They tell me each time that everything is fine. No, I am sorry, that is not the case. Out of 2.7 million workers, 1.5% more people are unemployed in Quebec. That means that 27,000 workers are not working.

It is for those people that I rise to speak today; for those 27,000 workers who, in the end, have no work, and perhaps that is because of an anti-strikebreaker law that causes employers to locate somewhere else rather than to come to Quebec. It is for those 27,000 workers that I am speaking today.

Whether they talk to me about balance or any other issue, it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Each province is free to do what it wants. I see no reason why my government, the Government of Canada, should interfere in these areas of jurisdiction. Quebec has its law and does very well. I am from Quebec and I live with that law. Nevertheless, I do not see why I would try to force all other Canadians to accept what I have at home. I am happy with what I have; it is perfect, but live and let live.

Moreover, I do not see why the Bloc Québécois want to introduce a law today requiring all of Canada to be like them. I am sorry, but I respect my neighbours. If they want to do it, let them do it but it is not up to me to oblige them.

[Some hon. members]

The federal code.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert is very close to my chair and still I cannot hear him very well. So order, please. That will be better for the hon. member.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this. I find it most ironic that the Bloc Québécois is introducing a bill to force all of Canada to vote in favour of anti-strikebreaker legislation.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today with my NDP--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might engage my colleagues tonight. We are all enjoying this discussion so much. I have a blockbuster speech on this subject. I would ask for unanimous consent from my colleagues to extend our hours by 10 minutes so I can deliver my speech.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There does not seem to be unanimous consent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise tonight with my NDP colleagues to speak in favour of this important bill.

I want to begin by recalling a person I know by the name of Don Milner. Don Milner is a young man with a wife and small children. He nearly lost his life on a picket line in Chatham, Ontario in 2002 during a very bitter six week strike at a company called International Truck. The company decided it was going to prolong the strike. It turned nasty and the company brought in strikebreakers. Don Milner and two others were run over by a van driven by young people hired by the company as security forces. They were there to ensure that strikebreakers were brought into the plant.

Don almost lost his life that day. He was run over by the wheels of the van. His life has changed forever. He has had numerous operations and has not been able to return to work and we do not know if he ever will. This has totally turned his life upside down. At least he is lucky and is alive; others have not been so lucky.

We know that the vast majority of collective bargaining sessions are settled without a strike. In fact, more than 97% of negotiations are settled without a strike. Anyone who has had to stand up for their rights in collective bargaining knows what it means to have scabs brought into their workplace. A minority of employers resort to this, those who decide they prefer confrontation instead of negotiation.

For those employers that decide to take this route, what does this mean? This means longer strikes. We know this from the history in every province where anti-scab legislation has been brought in. We know it means more violence. We know there have been deaths and all kinds of incidents on picket lines as a result of scabs. We know bad labour relations result, both during negotiations and after a strike or lockout is settled. It can affect the workplace for months and years to come.

Scabs take the food right out of the mouths of strikers and their families. We just need to ask workers in federal jurisdictions, people who would be covered by this new law who work at places like Giant Mine, Telus, Vidéotron, SECUR and CBC. They all know firsthand what it means to have strikebreakers and scabs in their workplaces. Imagine what that would feel like if we decided to stand up for our rights and others were brought in at a fraction of the wage in order to do our jobs. Surely, we would want to stand up and defend our rights.

We know from the experience in Quebec and British Columbia that anti-scab legislation is successful. Surely, we support the fundamental rights of working people not only here in Canada but around the world as well. If we support the right of working people to freedom of association, freedom to join a union, and freedom to free collective bargaining, then we must support their right to free collective bargaining and their right to not have scabs in their workplace. I urge all members to stand in support of this bill.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 7:29 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, immediately before the time provided for 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.

[The Speaker, 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 divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #50

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)