Debates of Oct. 17th, 1995

Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be read the third time and passed.

Excise Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the third reading stage of Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This concludes the votes for this evening.

It being 6.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 15, 1995, consideration of the motion that Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services), be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Canada Labour Code

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-317 standing in the name of my colleague and friend from Manicouagan. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act so as to deal with the issue of scabs and essential services in the case of labour disputes.

I am somewhat surprised to be in this position in 1995, because it seems to me this kind of legislation should have been passed long ago at the federal level.

The history of labour relations has more often than not been one of struggle and sometimes, unfortunately, one of violence. When we study the history of the labour movement, we realize that when violence occurred, either on picket lines or as a result of a strike, it was in situations where the employer had hired strike breakers. In other words, he had replaced his employees who were legally on strike with people who were supposed to do the same work.

[An hon. member]

Scabs.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As my colleague says, scabs, to use a colloquialism.

I think it only makes sense that in 1995, the Canada Labour Code should contain a provision of this kind that would harmonize labour relations in situations where a strike may turn violent and ensure that employees who have temporarily lost their jobs are not replaced, since otherwise violence tends to develop on the picket lines and we get situations that are truly appalling.

I actually thought the Canada Labour Code contained a provision to that effect, because the Government of Quebec passed similar legislation in 1978, if I am not mistaken. At the time, representatives for the employers protested that it was not appropriate to intervene in labour relations in a conflict situation of this kind, the excuse being that employers should be free to take any action necessary to continue their operations.

I think that at the time Quebec society made a wise decision when it told employers: Gentlemen, in our society, the government has a responsibility to provide leadership, to identify potentially violent situations and remove the cause of violence on the picket lines. In Quebec, if I remember correctly, we had two major disputes in which strike breakers were hired by companies and there was violence on the picket lines.

I remember the infamous strike in the sixties at United Aircraft in Longueuil and seeing on the news that armoured buses were bringing in people who were supposed to replace the workers who were legally walking the picket lines. This was a violent situation, and I think it is not in the interest of society to allow such situations to continue.

There was another case referred to at the time as the strike at Lapalme. This was a company connected with the Post Office Department. Its employees were on strike and, again, had been replaced with strike breakers or scabs. This dispute poisoned labour relations in Quebec for months and months. There were demonstrations supporting the workers, and petitions were signed. When the PQ government came to power in 1976, there had been considerable debate on the issue, so that legislation was adopted to regulate the whole issue of hiring strike breakers.

In fact, since that time, Quebec has had no violent conflicts comparable to those we saw in the sixties and seventies. Employers finally understood, although for a long time they were against this legislation. They were supposed to go to the Supreme Court but, if I remember correctly, the case was withdrawn in the eighties when the employers realized that the situation had improved since the passage of this bill.

I am very surprised that the Canada Labour Code did not take its cue from the Government of Quebec, especially since this concerns a large number of employees in Quebec. There are more than 200,000 employees in crown corporations, corporations regulated by the Canada Labour Code. In Canada, there are more than one million. I think that the House of Commons should act responsibly

and realize there is a major problem which should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Why is this still a problem? I think there are two reasons. The first, obviously, is negligence. The official opposition has put a number of questions to the Minister of Labour since her arrival in the House. We asked her if the Canadian government was going to introduce legislation. Her replies have always been evasive. The questions put to her by the official opposition concerned a labour dispute which still today, in 1995, poisons labour relations at a flour mill in Montreal. The employees came and demonstrated outside Parliament; they came to hear us in the House galleries. The dispute lasted a very long time.

What is odd is that this dispute involved the same company and the same people who were on the management side in a dispute that, a few years or months before the Parti Quebecois enacted the legislation in Quebec, forced the government to take immediate action because one man had been killed. Somebody was shot at on the picket lines, and a worker was dead. The government assumed its responsibilities at that point.

Today we realize that the Government of Canada, with a minister whose arrival was a bit strange and whose role was rather vague-

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

She was elected.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

She was elected and a department was found for her. It could have been the department of the Canadian near north, it could have been the department of Canadian rain, or the department of the Rocky Mountains. It was simply a matter of finding her a department so she would have some credibility when she toured Quebec defending the option she is currently defending.

I am not saying this to criticize her work, but simply to point out that she did not do what she had to do as Minister of Labour. We do not feel there is a Minister of Labour in Canada in this case.

The second reason the Government of Canada is putting off passing legislation like this is one of ideology. You know that there was a law like this in Ontario. If I am not mistaken, it was passed by the NDP government. The new Harris government-I might say the harass government, but it is the Harris government-has announced that this law will be repealed.

I have not heard that the legislation in question had caused any more trouble in Ontario than in Quebec. It is being challenged for only one reason, an ideological one, which is to allow employers the freedom to do what they want with their property.

I thought that way of thinking was out of fashion in Canada today. I thought that the Canadian state had taken certain steps to oversee the action of employers in order to ensure a certain balance between the law of the market place, the law of might makes right, the law of the jungle, whatever you want to call it, and basic public interest. I believe that the attitude adopted by the Government of Ontario in this instance is a purely ideological one.

Nothing in Ontario labour relations in recent years has proven that the legislation was not working. In Quebec, on the contrary, it can be said that since 1978, which makes 17 years now, there has been unanimous agreement that the act is working well.

Even the conseil de patronat du Québec gave up its Supreme Court challenge by the late 1980s.

I hope that this House will examine the bill of our colleague from Manicouagan with care, and will once and for all settle this pressing problem of justice in labour relations for all Canadian workers, and no doubt for a few months more for Quebec workers as well.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to be able to say that I was pleased to rise today on Bill C-317. Unfortunately, earlier incidents prevent me from doing so.

However, today, I will take a few moments to deal with it, and then I will talk about related issues. They are indeed related because, to a large extent, they have to do with remarks we heard today and I want to spend some more time dealing with those.

The bill sponsored by the member for Manicouagan is aimed at amending the Canada Labour Code with respect to public service staff relations. As it stands, this piece of legislation respecting the Canada Labour Code is relevant; unfortunately, I cannot support it. I believe that the proposals cannot be examined independently from the federal government's general approach to industrial relations.

Prohibiting the use of replacement workers and maintenance of essential services must be considered in the context of a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code.

Indeed, amending only one aspect of the Canada Labour Code is the wrong way to proceed; a certain balance must be achieved when considering changes to labour laws. I am sure that this is what the government will be seeking when it eventually chooses to amend the Canada Labour Code.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

When? When?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The member opposite wants to know when. The Canadian Parliament will undoubtedly have the opportunity in the future, as it did in the past, to improve all the laws for the good of the Canadian people. I commend the member who asked me when for his concern for Canada's future. I know that when the constitutional issue will have been settled, when we will have voted no in a few days, he and I will continue to strive to improve the legislation in the long term. So when he worries about the exact date, I can tell

the member for Bourassa that he will have ample time to examine these issues because in two weeks he will vote no and refuse the separation and Quebec will still be part of Canada.

The member who spoke just before me mentioned that the Minister of Labour came to the House in a way that was a bit strange. I respectfully protested without disrupting the decorum of the House-

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

As you often do.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

-as I do once in a while, and I specified that "a bit strange" in that case referred to her election.

We heard that many times in this House. We even heard a Bloc member say, a few weeks ago, that the labour minister was not as legitimate as other Quebec members because her constituents were mostly anglophones since she represents Westmount. We all remember those comments made in the House last week. The member for Bourassa heard them just as I did. He knows who uttered those words and he knows these comments were made.

We also heard a member say in this House-no, it was rather outside the House and the media reported it-that, in this referendum debate, maybe only the so-called old stock Quebecers should get involved in this issue. Surely the member for Bourassa does not support that theory. Indeed, I would be surprised if he did.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Could we get back to the bill?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The member opposite asks me to get back to the bill. It is not I who alluded to the supposedly strange way the labour minister-and we are talking about the labour code amendment-was elected.

A few weeks ago, or should I say a few months ago, we heard derogatory remarks made against the member for Saint-Léonard, the secretary of state for parliamentary affairs, just because he also represented a riding composed mainly of an ethnic group that is different from that of other Canadians.

[An hon. member]

How is this relevant?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not raise the issue of relevance. It is simply because, a few minutes ago, another member of this House referred to what he called a rather curious situation. I want to say a few more words about this curious situation because today a member of the media was the target of what I would call virulent attacks.

Joyce Napier, a well-known CBC reporter, was also insulted because her accent-I do not even know if this is true-is supposedly not quite the same as that of other Quebecers. This journalist was insulted in this way because another parliamentarian, this time the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, has decided that such attacks should be aimed not only at members of other parties and of some cultural communities but also at members of the media.

Is this because the lady in question has a name that is-I do not know if it is English, Irish or Scottish-but the fact is that it is not-

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the hon. member for a while and his remarks are not at all relevant to Bill C-317, which deals with anti-strikebreaking legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have been in the chair since the beginning of private members' business and I clearly recall another member making a speech on the bill, in which he addressed other issues as well.

On the other hand, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was certainly on the right track at the beginning of his speech.

[An hon. member]

Yes, at the beginning.

[An hon. member]

More or less.