Bill C-295 (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

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

moved that Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in the House to debate C-295, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of strikebreakers

Strikebreakers, scabs and replacement workers, call them whatever, they have no place in modern labour negotiations. The issue has been coming up in the House for well over 20 years. Similar bills have come close to being passed that would eliminate the use of strikebreakers.

In 2002 and 2005, anti-scab bills were lost by only a handful of votes. It is time for this Parliament to deliver what Canadian workers have been asking for: fairness, justice and equality.

I would like to recognize the work that our party has done over the years for labour rights in Canada. We have fought, since our inception, to bring equity and fairness to workers because what is good for workers is good for all Canadians.

The NDP understands that workers' rights are human rights, that workers have fought for and won the right to form unions, to bargain collectively, to withdraw their labour to achieve gains in the workplace, or to stop destructive practices.

Personally, I feel very strongly about this amendment. Working in the labour movement for over 12 years, I have seen firsthand the devastation that scabs have on a workforce and in communities. I have seen families torn apart and alienated over many years because of an ideology that does not support workers' rights.

Fair wages, a safe workplace, health care and pensions are just some of the things that the labour movement and collective bargaining have achieved. Many of these things are now taken for granted, gains that our forefathers and mothers fought for and even died for, so that future generations would have better working conditions and better lives.

The bill that we are debating today is fundamental to protecting those hard-fought gains. The bill contains a consequence when workers' rights are ignored. Without real deterrents the use of strikebreakers will continue to erode the legacy of generations of past workers.

The bill is similar to another private member's bill currently making its way through the House. I would like to thank my hon. colleagues from the Bloc for the work that they are doing, and have done in the past, standing up for working women and men in Quebec. The province of Quebec understands and respects the rights of workers and has had anti-scab legislation for almost 30 years.

I hope my hon. colleagues will support this bill and give workers across the country the real protection that they deserve.

C-295 is a much stronger amendment to the Canada Labour Code. It would prohibit the use of replacement workers and it has a real deterrent, a consequence if replacement workers are used in a strike or lockout. Without deterrents that will make employers think twice before breaking the law, the amendment is less effective and leaves workers without protection.

I know there will be arguments from other hon. members who disagree with this amendment, so let me say how these changes will benefit workers and their employers, their workplaces, the community and the economy.

Currently, 97% of collective agreements are negotiated without a strike or lockout. That is because most employers know they have a legal responsibility to negotiate with their unionized employees. However, when that does not happen, when an abusive employer ignores that responsibility and strikebreakers are called in, tensions rise in the workplace and on the picket line. Both sides generally get dug into their positions and the strike or lockout is left to drag on. The scabs are generally caught in the middle of what becomes a volatile situation and are often used by the employer.

These situations leave lasting scars on workplaces and communities and sometimes never fully heal. The cost in reduced or lost production can have devastating effects on local economies for many years to come.

By eliminating the practice of scab labour, we are likely to see the amount of strikes and lockouts drop and those that do happen will not last as long.

In Quebec, for example, since adopting anti-scab legislation in its labour code, it has gone from an average of 39 days lost due to strikes down to 15 days. In B.C. there was a 50% drop in the number of days lost in the first year the law was introduced there. In Ontario, where it had anti-scab law in place for only two years, there were similar results.

Shorter lockouts and strikes mean the impact of work stoppages on families and communities is lessened. As strikes and lockouts drag on, other businesses suffer. Workers on strike or locked out do not have the money to spend that they once had. This can have a prolonged impact on small and single industry towns and that impact could last for many years after the dispute.

Scabs are also generally exploited. They tend to be desperate, in need of a job, and can be paid less than unionized workers to do the same job. They have no job security. The conditions they work in are generally worse as health and safety standards, hours or work, as well as other conditions of the collective agreement do not apply to them.

By lowering working standards we are putting workers' safety and possibly other lives in jeopardy. Scab workers bring out the worst in employers and employees. Their use creates strife and malice. Those who do cross a picket line are not quickly forgotten.

C-295 would go a long way toward reducing tension and violence on a picket line. Strikes and lockouts are hard enough without watching day after day someone else goes in to do someone's job. Sometimes tensions and frustrations build until it is expressed in violence.

There is evidence that domestic violence increases during periods of labour unrest. While violence is never excusable, it helps to understand the root cause so we can act to prevent this type of behaviour.

By ending scab labour we will create a more peaceful picket line. Resentment on both sides will not be as strong and therefore productivity and company loyalty will return sooner, making the employee-employer relationship much more healthy and productive.

Others have argued that the current labour code already deals with replacement workers. They point out that the current law, subsection 94(2.1), which reads in part:

No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit--

It goes on to state that this current language was created through consultation between labour and management and is therefore fair and balanced.

However, subsection 94(2.1) explicitly allows the use of scabs, replacement workers, as long as the employer is not undermining the collective bargaining process. By their very nature, scabs undermine collective bargaining.

When they are used, there is no incentive for employers to go back to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith with their employees. If there is no ability to use replacement workers at all, the ability to undermine the bargaining process would be diminished.

The Ekati diamond mine strike in the Northwest Territories is a recent example of how employers like BHP Billiton, a multi-billion dollar a year company, took advantage of the current legislation. During negotiations, BHP tried to remove articles that had previously been negotiated and it took the union months to present its case in front of the labour relations board even though BHP was in clear violation of the labour code.

The company continued to operate with replacement workers and there was no significant penalty for trying to undermine the collective bargaining process. Without serious deterrents or consequences there is nothing stopping this type of behaviour from happening again.

Another recent lockout of Telus employees that was allowed to drag on for months causing tension on both sides could have been a lot shorter if the company did not have the ability to use replacement workers. I salute all those workers who hung in there to maintain the gains that they made under very trying circumstances.

We know this legislation can work. In Quebec, there has been virtual silence from employers whenever the labour code is up for review. In my home province of B.C. in 2002, the government left the anti-scab clauses alone in its rewrite of the provincial labour code. It knows, as employers do, that anti-scab legislation works.

Progressive changes at the federal level will send a strong signal to the remaining provincial governments to introduce bills to end the use of replacement workers.

Canada's federal labour laws cover one out of every ten jobs across the country, jobs that play a critical role in our national economy. In today's world, reducing the risk of disruption at our borders, airports and telecommunications networks is vital. This debate has gone on for well over 20 years. I am sure that if we listen closely, we can still hear the sound of the previous debates echoing in the chamber.

As parliamentarians, we must come together and say, no, to the arcane and destructive practices of using scabs, replacement workers and strike breakers. We must do what is in the best interests of working families. We must support this crucial amendment to the Canada Labour Code.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, does the member know that only two provinces in Canada have enacted anti-scab legislation, and after 30 years there are still only two?

Is this because it works so well? Ontario enacted such legislation in 1993, then had to repeal it in 1995.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I recognize that only two provinces in the country have anti-scab legislation, but Ontario did not have to get rid of its legislation. It could have kept it and I think it would have seen a lot less friction in its negotiations and strikes.

I know many workers in the provinces are working very hard and lobbying their provincial governments as well as the federal government to bring anti-scab legislation to every provincial labour code and to this federal body as well.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the hon. member for Vancouver Island North said in her presentation. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I agree that the worker replacement legislation in British Columbia has worked very well.

She properly recognizes that replacement workers are often vilified, exploited and mistreated in many ways. I would very respectfully ask the member to not refer to replacement workers as scabs. She talks of scab labour. This is a highly derogatory term, which I believe, in the interest of calm and respectful relationships between employers and employees, should not be used when referencing employee replacement legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take the point of the hon. member opposite.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Vancouver Island North on her bill.

My question is this: could she underline the importance of an anti-scab law to the social climate in labour-management negotiations during a labour dispute?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well about labour disputes. I believe he is very much in support of anti-scab legislation as we have talked about this. Where tensions already exist in the workplace and they come to a head, one side decides to either lock out their employees or the employees decide to walk out. Those tensions carry over into the community, homes and families. As I mentioned, there has been a documented increase in domestic violence and also violence on picket lines.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, we are on the threshold of quite an important moment in the House, with two very important bills on this same matter in front of the House. There is actually the possibility, despite the opposition of a minority government, that the House might do the right thing and put in place laws to protect workers in the contract negotiation process.

I want to congratulate my friends from the Bloc.

They introduced their own bill. It is very important. We also have ours.

The New Democrats have been behind this legislation for many years and we look forward to its passage in the House.

I would ask the member to reflect on some of the impacts, if she has the time to comment, or maybe other members can comment later in the debate. I have stood on picket lines as bus loads of workers were rushed through, workers who were being exploited by the plant owners. These contacts are absolutely terrible and do not need to be in place nor do they need to happen. It is time for worker protection now and this law can do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have also been on a picket line and have seen replacement workers go in to do our jobs. It is very stressful situation, but it is also demeaning to the replacement workers and everyone who is involved in the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for becoming involved in the democratic process and for making the effort to introduce a bill. However, I do not share her opinion, and I will explain why.

The Government of Canada carefully examined Bill C-295 and determined that we cannot support this bill, which amends the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers in sectors under federal jurisdiction.

The Government of Canada reached this conclusion after taking a careful look at the bill and in light of two very basic principles. First, does the proposed legislation maintain the fragile balance needed in labour-management relations, which are so vital to Canada's economic and social performance? Second, is there evidence to support the idea that such a law would benefit workers? The answer to these two questions is no.

Labour-management relations have repercussions on both management and unions, and any law that concerns those relations must take both parties' aspirations into account. I would just like to mention that the repercussions of labour-management relations go far beyond the two parties' concerns. I will explain.

Labour-management relations affect Canada's economic and social performance. They affect production, employment, salary gains, profits, individual incomes, productivity and competitiveness, to name just a few of the main aspects of an economic and social system. A government must keep this broader picture in mind when making appropriate laws in the area of labour-management relations. There is a basic principle that should always be taken into account. This principle calls for a balance between the aspirations of unions and those of management and requires that the greater national interest always be kept in mind.

The second principle—the principle of evidence—is equally important. Before a law is amended, there should be clear evidence that the change will be beneficial. What is important here is balance. The current system is in line with the two principles I have described.

The Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999, barely seven years ago, in an attempt to modernize our legislation and improve collective bargaining. During consultations, balance was achieved, and it was approved by unions and employers alike.

In fact, both sides presented legitimate arguments regarding the issue to be considered and, in a fair and transparent manner, the government took the time to examine all arguments before enacting the legislation, which, still to this day, respects the interests of both parties as well as national interests.

The provisions regarding replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code that were enacted in 1999 are balanced, work well, and do not need to be amended. The current provisions reflect the approach agreed upon by stakeholders within the unions following extensive consultation when Part I of the Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999. The current provisions take into account not only the interests of those two sides, but also national interests.

Bear in mind that this legislation regulates the federal private sector, which includes all the main industries of the infrastructure that ensures the proper functioning of our economy, such as air, rail, sea and ground transportation, to name a few. For those who may not be familiar with the details of the current system, allow me to explain how the existing legislation brings a balanced approach to the issue of replacement workers.

Current provisions do not impose a general prohibition on replacement workers, but they do ban the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity.

The employees in a union or an employee association, if they feel wronged, can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believe the employer is indeed using an unfair labour practice.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board has the mandate and expertise to resolve such problems, which they review quite quickly.

What are the problems with this bill? Allow me to explain how the situation would change if this bill were enacted. If passed, this bill would disrupt the balance of the interests, a disruption that would hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of the collective bargaining process.

The main economic leverage of the unions during the collective bargaining process is their right to strike. The employer's countervailing power is not the right to a lockout; it is the right to try for a short period to continue to operate its business with a certain limited capacity during a work stoppage until the problems are resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Such is the true test of the economic force that stems from the results of the appropriate collective bargaining for the economic situation of the day.

A total ban on the use of replacement workers would paralyze the economic right of employers to operate in a slow economy and could lead them, unfortunately, to structure their business so as to reduce their dependence on permanent employees for fear of being vulnerable.

This would be inconsistent with the workers' interests and would undermine the fragile balance currently contained in our labour legislation.

The other principle is that of evidence. As I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no evidence that the proposed change in the bill would help workers.

Allow me to address some essential variables that are clearly important for the workers.

First, there is no evidence that legislation on replacement workers reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have many more work stoppages than Ontario, which does not ban the use of replacement workers. For example, in 2005, Quebec had twice as many work stoppages as Ontario and four times as many as in the federal sector.

Second, there is no evidence that legislation on replacement workers means work stoppages are shorter. For example, the average duration of work stoppages in Quebec was 47 days compared to 38 in Ontario, between 2003 and 2005.

Third, there is no proof that legislation governing replacement workers would reduce the average duration of work stoppages. For example, despite Quebec legislation to that effect, the average work stoppage in that province rose from an average length of 37 days, for the 1975-1977 period, to an average of 47 days for the 2003-2005 period.

Fourth, there is no proof that legislation governing replacement workers reduces the number of days of work lost. For example, Quebec lost 1.5 times the number of working days lost in Ontario, on a comparable basis, during the same period of 2003 to 2005.

Finally, there is no proof that replacement worker legislation has any effect on salaries. For example, Ontario does not have such legislation and British Columbia does; in both provinces, wage settlements in 2005 were marginally lower than in Quebec.

Thus, there is no evidence indicating that prohibiting the use of replacement workers has any of the alleged benefits for workers. First, there are no fewer work stoppages; second, work stoppages that do occur are not any shorter; and third, it has no visible effect on the number of days lost or the amount of salary increases.

To conclude, I would like to reaffirm that principles should dictate our strategic response: the principles of national interests and evidence that justifies the amendment being sought. In both cases, there is no justification for amending the law.

Today, union relations in the federal private sector are the best they have ever been. Last year, over 95% of conflicts governed by the Canada Labour Code were resolved without work stoppages.

Most federally-regulated employers do not hire replacement workers. In many cases, managers or other employees excluded from negotiations are reassigned in order to maintain operations.

Consequently, the Government of Canada cannot support this bill as it does not respect the two major principles for legislative reform: it is not based on evidence and it has no benefit to the national economy.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, replacement workers.

The House may find that it is experiencing a bit of déjà vu, as the House is also considering Bill C-257, a bill with the same title, same principle and same goal. Nonetheless, I am pleased to speak today and address this important labour issue.

I have a bit of a different perspective than most members on labour issues. I grew up in eastern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. The House is familiar with the strife, fighting and the unrest that existed in many former Warsaw Pact countries. The transition to communism brought much upheaval to communities all across eastern Europe. We all had to make significant lifestyle changes while living under its powerful grip. Thankfully, my family came to Canada in the 1960s. We came to a land of peace, social security and balance. I am shaped by my childhood experiences, as we all are, and I do not take the social cohesion and solidarity we enjoy in this country for granted.

Peaceful relations between employers and workers are the norm in Canada. This was the case in the 1960s and it still is today. We must do what we can to ensure that we continue to enjoy social security as well as labour, peace and stability.

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines economy as the state of a country or area in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money. We often equate the economy with finances but it is much more than that. It is a human construct of perimeters that include a whole range of human activities.

A stable economy, in my view, brings with it peace, security and an environment in which people may gain a livelihood. People may work, enjoy leisure time, spend time with families and friends, pursue hobbies and engage in sports, academics or whatever they may choose.

No one should underestimate the influence of the labour movement on our day to day activities and our economy in the above sense. Peace and stability in the labour movement ensures that we may enjoy our lives to the fullest extent possible.

I grew up in an environment where this was not possible because of the power of the Communist dogma and the labour unrest and discontent that it entailed. The tensions were high between the working class and the government. Trust me when I say that this is not a situation in which anyone should want to find himself or herself. That is why I chose to speak today.

An act that restricts replacement workers from being hired during a strike or lockout is important. It is important for workers, for employers and, ultimately, for all Canadians.

Anti-replacement worker legislation is presently on the books in British Columbia and Quebec. This is an important policy for ensuring that rights are respected and all stakeholders are brought to the table. Such legislation may help to end strikes or lockouts sooner. It can help bring people together to make compromises and ensures an end to the work disruption, which comes at a later time.

Anti-replacement worker legislation is about encouraging all players to come together to find common ground and find the solution. A lockout or strike inevitably entails tension, hard feelings and stress between workers and management. We must seize the opportunity to help reduce tensions and bring the parties together on some sort of equal footing.

The principle of this legislation and Bill C-257 allows the Canada Labour Code to be a progressive document. We have a duty as parliamentarians to look after both the interests of workers and employers. We can best do this by respecting human rights, ensuring an inclusive environment and a level playing field for all.

I have spent the last few minutes speaking in support of the principle of the bill. It is unfortunate, though, that the House has to deal with Bill C-295. We already have another legislative proposal, Bill C-257 on the order paper. I question why the hon. member for Vancouver Island North introduced Bill C-295 after an almost identical bill was introduced just 13 days prior to her own bill.

As a result, I question the efficiency of the House having to deal with Bill C-295. It would be much more efficient and more conducive to realize the goal of the legislation if we were to all work together and urge our colleagues to support Bill C-257 which was already on the order paper. This way the House could have spoken with one voice on this matter in a much more focused fashion.

Even the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress want to see one piece of legislation because it means a better chance of something actually getting passed in the House. With anti-replacement legislation already on the order paper, this would have been a once in a lifetime opportunity for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. As she knows, private members do not often get the opportunity to bring the issue that matters to them most to the floor of the House.

As I was lucky to be number eight in the private members' draw, I put a motion on rural route mail delivery before the House. In my view, she could have worked with the member for Gatineau on the replacement worker legislation and introduced another bill or motion on another important issue in her riding. After all, every constituency has several matters that deserve attention. In that way she could have had her anti-replacement worker legislation and addressed another subject of importance to her constituents.

For that reason, I find it very difficult to support Bill C-295. I support the principle but, with another similar bill ahead of it in the queue, Bill C-257, it just does not make sense, from the viewpoint of efficiency, for the House and it is not in the interest of employer-labour relations.

Let us put our support behind workers and employers in a focused fashion and speak with one voice. A legislative proposal of this kind has been before the House several times before. Let us work together in a concrete fashion, like we are urging employers and workers to do, and get Bill C-257 to committee so it can be further studied and we can hear from stakeholders and experts in the field.

I have a riding that is very much engaged with the Canadian economy. A number of head offices and headquarters are located in Oak Ridges—Markham and I have a very low unemployment rate. As a matter of fact, I am pleased to host a business seminar in my riding.

On October 11 in Markham, Public Works and Government Services Canada will be doing a seminar presentation on how to do business with the Government of Canada. I am pleased to host this seminar which would be useful for any enterprise in attempting to promote its goods and services to the Government of Canada.

I congratulate members for raising the issue of replacement workers in the House and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the debates that follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the NDP member for Vancouver Island North, for her presentation and clarifications. I especially want to thank her for introducing this anti-scab bill.

As hon. members are aware, last June, the Bloc Québécois, represented by my colleague from Gatineau, introduced Bill C-257 in this House. This bill truly prohibits replacement workers, because the existing Canadian legislation does not.

At present, part III of the Canada Labour Code prohibits replacement workers, but an employer just has to keep negotiating with a union, or pretend to be negotiating, in order to hire as many replacement workers as it wants.

This is the tenth time the Bloc Québécois has introduced an anti-scab bill in this House. Some bills died on the order paper, while others were not votable. The second-last bill was defeated by 18 votes and the last bill, in 2005, by 12 votes. We intend to carry the vote in late October. We will do everything in our power to win it.

This House can see that we are in good shape to win the vote on this bill, because the NDP will support us. Moreover, every Liberal member who has spoken in this House has promised to support us. Things are looking good, and we are confident that our Liberal colleagues will eventually decide as a group, this time publicly and officially, to support both the Bloc Québécois bill and the NDP bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of improving conditions for workers, who make a vital contribution to our society's economic well-being and quality of life. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will support our NDP colleague's bill.

However, because Bill C-257 will be put to a vote first and will pass, we trust that it will not be necessary to hold a second vote on a nearly identical bill. There are slight differences between the two bills, and I would have liked the member for Vancouver Island North to describe them, because our bill seems more comprehensive and appears to cover a greater variety of situations. That said, we support Bill C-295 introduced by the NDP.

The benefits of a bill like this one are well known. Currently, there are two classes of workers in Quebec, one of which falls under the Quebec labour code. They have the right to very effective anti-scab legislation that makes for shorter, less violent disputes and contributes to a more positive work environment. This is perfectly clear because Quebec has had legislation in place since 1977; the facts are obvious.

I would like to cite a few statistics, but one has only to look to see the situation clearly. Anyone who watches TV news reports or reads the newspapers will have noted that over the past 30 years, the longest, most violent, most difficult strikes, those that produce the most arduous labour disputes, are the ones that take place within organizations that fall under federal jurisdiction.

I would like to try to refresh the minister's memory. Vidéotron: an extremely violent strike that lasted 10 months during which many Vidéotron facilities were vandalized. Sécur: more vandalism and another long and difficult dispute that lasted three months.

Cargill: 38 months—that is more than three years. This conflict caused wounds to the community of Baie-Comeau that have yet to heal.

The Radio-Nord Communications strike lasted nearly two years—22 months, to be precise. My favourite—if I can call it that—because it was the most ridiculous of them all, was the labour dispute at radio station CHNC in Bonaventure. It lasted three years. After two years, the 12 replacement workers demanded membership in the union.

Clearly, this is senseless. The replacement worker option leads to just the kind of difficulties and absurd situations as those the Bonaventure radio station experienced. The minister stated his point of view, but I do not agree at all.

The first time that he spoke in this House against the Bloc Québécois' proposed bill, he referred to studies and analyses conducted by the Montreal Economic Institute and the Fraser Institute. Those analyses were strange, to say the least, because they were based on outdated information—the figures were from 1960 to 1999. The studies had been conducted in very large businesses, although the Quebec economy is based primarily on SMEs. There are data much more recent than those of 1999. On the strength of the Fraser Institute study, the Minister of Labour had argued that there was less investing in those provinces that have anti-scab legislation.

We were quick to point out that those two studies made no sense and that investing depends on many other factors besides anti-scab legislation. In any case, the statistics we see do not correspond to this argument.

He found other arguments to justify the fact that he was against the bill. In 1991, the Minister of Labour voted to support an anti-scab bill. I would point out that, at the time, he was a member of the same party, but he had the interests of the workers in his riding at heart. He represents the riding of Jonquière—Alma, which has one of the highest degree of union representation of any riding in Quebec, if not all of Canada.

How is it, then, that he supported anti-scab legislation a few years ago, but he no longer supports it now?

On May 1, 2006, he replied to me in this House that, being theMinister of Labour, he now had to consider the issue from a Canadian perspective. It was very interesting, because he seemed to be in agreement. In his introduction, he said that it was desirable in Quebec, because of its distinct society. I do not agree with that either, because I believe we are a nation. He chose to translate it by "distinct society". Thus, he was saying that Quebec is a distinct society and that anti-scab legislation is part of its traditions, but since he was now a minister, he had to view things from a Canadian perspective.

Is it possible that the Minister of Labour has cashed in his social conscience for a limousine? Would that be possible? I ask the question because it is just too incredible. In 1991, he agreed and today he no longer does because he is the minister.

Does this mean that he would agree if he were a mere MP today? Imagine that the member for Jonquière—Alma, Minister of Labour, truly wishes to defend the interests of the workers in his riding. Then should he not, in caucus and cabinet, seek to convince his colleagues and the ministers of the Conservative Party of the pertinence of an anti-scab bill for which he voted in 1991 and which, he believes, is part of Quebec's traditions? That is what he said last May.

Now he only sees the disadvantages of this legislation. He says it is not based on proof and that it has no advantages. I will not repeat each of his arguments, but it is impossible that there are no advantages. It is impossible that there has been such a law in Quebec for 30 years that has no advantages for workers or for industry. The latter are not complaining and have adapted quite well to this law. I doubt they would go so far as to promote it but they are living quite well with it.

It is an exaggeration to say that there is not a single advantage; it means that it is insignificant.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate.

I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North for introducing the bill. Those who know her background will know how proud she is, like myself, to be a product of the Canadian labour movement. She carries those values and important priorities with her to this place. That is why I know that she feels so good about bringing forward this legislation.

The fact there are two pieces of legislation, we can talk about a red herring. We barely lost the vote the last time by a handful of votes which were primarily Liberals. Conservatives were not really expected to be sympathetic to workers and their needs, so there is no shock there. We are very much like-minded with the Bloc on this issue in terms of believing this is important for working people. The Liberals put themselves forward as a party that supposedly cares about workers and yet they divided on this issue. There were enough Liberals opposed that it lost.

The fact that there are two bills here means that we are going to get two hours to talk about this issue and to put the matter forward. Members of the Canadian Labour Congress are here today and are watching very closely. We intend to make sure that the bill carries this time, but if it is not this time, it will be the time after that, or the time after that, or after that, or after that. This fight will not stop until this legislation is brought in and the workers of the country are protected the way they should be.

That is why the member is proud to bring the bill to the House. That is why I am proud to stand here and lend my voice and precious vote to this issue.

Let us also deal with another little bugaboo that is out there. I understand some people do not like the term “scabs”. I appreciate that. It is a vulgar word. It puts terrible images in one's mind. It is a horrible thing to call someone. But let me tell the House, a scab is a scab is a scab. When people take workers' jobs when those workers are fighting to have a decent income so they can put food on the table and take care of their families, those other people deserve to be called scabs. I will always call them scabs. We are not backing off on that.

Let us tackle the issue of whether or not this legislation would do all kinds of damage. If we listen to some we would swear the whole economic roof of the country is going to cave in.

For 30 years it has not just been the PQ in charge in Quebec. There have been Liberals. Of course, we all know that is a nice euphemistic term for all the right wingers under one umbrella. In fact, the current Liberal premier used to be a Progressive Conservative. That was back when there were progressive-type Conservatives. That is a little different. Nonetheless he is very much on the right wing of the political landscape in Canada. Does that premier say that he is going to pull this legislation or change it? No.

What about British Columbia, the other province that has this legislation? It is the same thing, Liberal. Everyone in B.C. who is not an NDPer becomes a Liberal. Did they pull that out when they did a major wrecking job, in my opinion, with major reforms to the labour bill in B.C.? Did they change this? No.

For all the bogeymen that former premier of Ontario Mike Harris used to talk about this legislation containing, in 1994, the first full year of the anti-scab legislation in Ontario, we had record levels of investment in the manufacturing sector in Ontario. One of the most highly unionized sectors in all of Ontario under anti-scab legislation, under an NDP government, and we had record capital investment in the year 1994.

If this legislation did as much harm as everyone says, it would not last another day in Quebec. It would not last another day in B.C. It would not have shown record investment in Ontario. Those are all bogeymen and red herrings meant to deny workers their rights under this bill because quite frankly, the employers do not want it. That is what this is all about.

The other big bugaboo we hear on this issue is that it makes for a fair fight. If the workers decide they are not going to work, it seems reasonable that the employer should be able to hire people to replace them; fair is fair. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what is fair.

The inability of workers to earn a wage is their pressure to get back to the bargaining table. The economic pressure of companies not being able to operate and make money brings them to the table. That is the equilibrium that is not right here because while the worker has no ability to earn that income, if the employer can bring in scabs to do the work, then there is no fight. It is a slaughter because economically the company keeps going.

We cannot equate a company's ability or inability to survive economically with moms or dads who have been on the picket line for five or six months. They show up on the picket line at dawn, having just had coffee with their spouse, and try to figure out how they will tell their kids there will not be any presents at Christmas.

I see some of the Conservatives snickering. I am fascinated that they find that funny.

They should go on a picket line where the people have been on strike for four months and there are scabs going in to do their jobs and let us see how many chuckles they get out of that. It is disgraceful.

There is nothing more frightening than being on the picket line after months and months, and not being able to pay bills or meet daily requirements and not know what tomorrow will bring. Then there are people going in every day, taking their jobs and guaranteeing they will still be on that picket line the next day.

Do we wonder why there is violence on the picket line? It is not radicals or union goons who create the violence. It is ordinary working people who finally snap under the pressure because they just cannot face going home another day with no answer as to how they will buy the food they need. It is that basic.

Sometimes some people in this place get a little distant from that real world. That is the real world with millions of Canadians. All they want, all that we want to ensure is that they have the decent protection of labour laws that make it a fair fight. That is all they want. They want to make it a fair fight.

We should give those workers their opportunity to have the best collective agreement that can be fairly negotiated between them and their employers. However, as long as we permit a corporation or a company to continue to operate by bringing in scabs, then we as a nation, with our laws, are imposing a huge injustice on those workers.

Another reason to do this, if we believe in it, is that we only have it in two provinces. That is a good reason to pass it nationally, so those people fighting for it in the other provinces have something to point to. If they can say that we have a national law which is good enough for the national Government of Canada, then it ought to be good enough for their province or their territory. We would be showing leadership and be leading by example.

Let me conclude by saying that this is not asking for a lot. It really is not. That is why it keeps coming back. That is why the Canadian Labour Congress puts its precious dollars into these campaigns. It is all about fairness. If we believe in economic fairness, then we want to believe that every Canadian is entitled to be protected by this legislation, not just those in the provinces of B.C. and Quebec but all Canadians. That is what this place is about, fairness for Canadians, and we have the power.

I implore a handful of Liberals, which is probably what we need right now, to change their minds and their last vote. Maybe they did it because they were government and it was party whipping or whatever. They should find any excuse. But please, I hope they search their hearts and their conscience, and realize that the precious vote they have been given can make a world of difference, a lifetime of difference, to people who otherwise do not have a voice.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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.

It being 2:32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)