These include prolonged and more bitter labour conflicts, more strikes and lockouts, increased picket-line confrontations and violence, less free and meaningful collective bargaining, problems that render resolution of the dispute more difficult.
The CLC and other trade unions have been working for years to bring balance and fairness into federal industrial relations by advocating a ban on replacement workers. We have, unfortunately, witnessed bitter disputes at Vidéotron in Quebec, Telus in B.C. and Alberta, Sécur in Quebec, Giant Mine up in the Northwest Territories, and of course, most recently, which my colleague Patty Ducharme will be speaking of, Ekati.
What is clear about all these disputes is that when workers are put in desperate situations by irresponsible employers, dangerous situations are almost assured. It is the role of government to avoid such scenarios by ensuring an even playing field between labour and management. This is a view most employers in the federal sector can also appreciate.
Ten years ago, a task force chaired by Andrew Sims, which has been referred to here this morning, published a report on reforming part one of the code. They heard from a range of witnesses and made a series of recommendations, but were divided on one major issue: the treatment of replacement workers under federal labour law.
It was also mentioned that Dr. Rodriguez Blouin offered a damning minority report of his own on the issue of replacement workers. Blouin's view on the issue was unmistakable. Here's a quote of what he said:
The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system, by introducing a foreign body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute, and leads eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.
Experience bears out Dr. Blouin's worst fears. In cases where disputes have occurred, employers need only to give the appearance that they are bargaining in good faith. After they meet this criterion, they are free to use replacement workers. In the cases of Telus, Ekati Mines, Vidéotron, Sécur, and Giant Mine, this is precisely what happened. So when a few renegade employers think otherwise, it is critical that rules exist to protect working families, our economy, and Canada's commitment to labour rights. Rules on replacement workers speak loudly to the priorities held in the federal labour laws.
Ultimately, the debate on Bill C-257 raises a larger question and cuts to the heart of what any labour relations system should be about: balance and fairness for all parties in a workplace relationship.
As Canada gears up for the 21st century, we must use an economic model that fits our values--or will it choose an economic model that enhances business productivity by ignoring core labour rights? Or will we follow the lead of enlightened countries and choose a model that emphasizes dynamic research, cutting-edge skills, and sincere commitment to labour rights?
We urge the federal government and the human resources committee to choose the latter, and of course a better course. Canada's federal rules on replacement workers continue to draw controversy, and will do so until the legitimate concerns of working families are addressed. When Bill C-257passed second reading in the House of Commons, Canada moved one step closer to joining those enlightened nations that value labour rights. It was a remarkable moment when politicians dispensed with partisan differences and joined forces to do the right thing.
In the interest of true balance and fairness and the rights of working families, we urge you to continue this course by amending the federal labour code to reflect the values widely held by Canadians.
In our brief we made two key points that were raised before the committee earlier. During the discussion between the CLC and MPs, all political parties and many MPs asked, how will the use of Bill C-257 comply with essential services in the Canada Labour Code?
The code sets out a clear responsibility for unions and employers on essential services to be maintained during a strike or lockout. Section 87.4 specifically makes reference to that. The point we want to make here is that the CLC maintains very strongly to this committee that Bill C-257 complies with the provisions of the Canada Labour Code in ensuring that essential services are maintained in the face of a strike or lockout. Further, we also go on to talk about the powers of the minister to investigate, where there is a breach in the legislation, who's best to be doing that. We recommend that the Canada Labour Relations Board should be charged with the responsibility of dealing with any breach in regard to the amended legislation.
Thank you.