Motion No. 48

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 36 the following:

"48.1 The heading before section 108.1 and section 108.1 of the Act are repealed."

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after the heading "Public Service Staff Relations Act" on page 43 the following:

"80.1 The heading before section 90.1 and section 90.1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act are repealed."

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-66 be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 43 with the following:

"81. Part I of Schedule I to the Act is amended by"

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 10 deals with section 107 and in some ways with section 108 of the act. Section 107 is the area of the labour code that deals with ministerial intervention.

I agree with my colleague who introduced this motion that probably this is not the way to handle this. At the time the problem arose with the restructuring offer put forward by Canadian Airlines, we suggested that changes be made to section 108 of the act rather than have this piecemeal approach where the minister can intervene and order a vote.

When a restructuring proposal is put forward, we are certainly not advocating that the collective bargaining process be usurped in any way. We are saying that it was not obvious to us which way Canadian employees would vote, but it was entirely obvious to us that they should have the opportunity to do so. It was obvious that they wanted that opportunity. The rest of their colleagues had the opportunity to vote on the restructuring proposal and we felt it was at the very foundation of democracy to allow them to have the vote.

I would agree with my colleague from the Bloc that section 107 could be done away with provided that section 108 is strengthened to allow union members to vote on a restructuring proposal put forward by their employer.

I have a private member's motion on the Order Paper that would strengthen section 108 and would allow employees of any union the opportunity to vote on a restructuring offer-and I stress the word restructuring-by their employer.

We have spent quite a lot of time today discussing the grain shipping aspect of the amendments to this bill. As my colleague from Vegreville pointed out, I suppose that a lot of people have encouraged him to vote in favour of the amendment put forward by the government. At first blush one might say that it is an improvement, that it appears to guarantee getting our grain to market. It does not. We know it does not guarantee anything except that the grain in the terminals would be loaded on to the ships. That is a point that bears repeating. We want to ensure that it is perfectly clear.

As far as sections 107 and 108 are concerned, it is down to a basic democracy. No road blocks should be put in anyone's way. If employers want to put a restructuring offer to their employees, then the employees should have a right to vote on it. There should be no pressure on them from the government to vote any particular way, but at least they should have the opportunity to express their views. If they would like to turn down the restructuring offer, that is well within their right. They would have to think about the consequences either way, whether they vote in favour or not in favour of the restructuring offer.

I know my colleagues would like to speak to this and I believe I have my remarks on the record.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, with respect to motions in Group No. 10 amending Bill C-66, I will vote in favour of the motion eliminating the minister's power to order a vote on the employer's final offers. I fully agree with this motion. To act otherwise would be undue political interference in labour relations.

Allowing the Minister of Labour to order a vote is contrary to free bargaining. Normally, the minister, in particular the minister of this government, will use his powers on the employer's side. This is why it is unacceptable to give such power to the Minister of Labour.

We must give both parties enough freedom to establish their power relationship as they see fit. The political authority must not exercice undue pressure on the unions. Only the unions, in particular the negotiating teams, must determine the right moment to submit offers to their membership.

In closing, I would like to talk briefly about the preventive withdrawal from work for pregnant women and nursing mothers. Unfortunately, there is no provision to amend the Canada Labour Code to protect pregnant women within the federal public service or in other jobs under federal jurisdiction.

There is an increasing number of women in the labour market. In 1993, they accounted for 40 per cent of workers, as opposed to only 35 per cent in 1971. Of course, the number of work accidents involving women has increased since there are more women in the work force.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada has launched a campaign, which I support, for the introduction of provisions in the Canada Labour Code to ensure healthy working conditions for a pregnant woman or a nursing mother by reassigning her, within the reasonable limits of her abilities, to jobs that pose no threat to her, the foetus or the child she is nursing. We must reduce the risks that can affect both the parents and their children.

The whole issue of working conditions that can have a detrimental effect on the reproductive system has been neglected for too long. The effects of work on pregnancy, including on the health of the mother who experiences important physiological changes and on the health of the foetus, have not been given serious consideration. Not much more attention has been paid to the relationship between work and sterility, miscarriages and birth defects.

If we improve working conditions so that pregnant or nursing women can work without risk, all workers will be better for it. When risks associated with a pregnant or nursing woman's job cannot be remedied, measures will have to be taken to make reassignment possible for the whole pregnancy or nursing period. Otherwise, the pregnant or nursing woman must be entitled to paid leave until the end of her pregnancy or nursing period.

Precautionary cessation of work is a very important issue and I call upon the government to introduce a legislation on it.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

March 3rd, 1997 / 7:40 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak again on the final group of report stage amendments to Bill C-66. I am presenting a couple of amendments which delete sections 107 and 108.1 and a similar section in the companion act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

One of the amendments before us tonight relates to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code which I am proposing to delete from the code. Section 107 reads:

The Minister, where he deems it expedient, may do such things as to him seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes or differences and to those ends the Minister may refer any question to the Board, or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.

For some members of the House this section will be immediately recognizable because it is the section of the code that the Minister of Labour used to justify his interference in the Canadian Airlines negotiations with its employees who were or are members of the Canadian auto workers.

I am proposing the deletion of this section of the code today because there has always been concern that this section could be wrongly used and the case in point simply proves the point.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

7:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the hon. member proposing an amendment?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

No, Mr. Speaker, I am simply following the amendment before us. I am proposing the deletion of this section of the code because there was concern with the section. It is just as it was outlined in the text.

The minister's action over this dispute with the Canadian auto workers and Canadian Airlines substantiates the argument that labour's rights can be abused if this section of the code is used and therefore it should be removed from the code to prevent any further abuse of workers or their rights.

Some have even argued that the use of section 107 in the case of Canadian Airlines and the CAW was illegal because the parties to the contract were not in the process of regular collective bargaining with regard to their contract. However, the fact that this section could be trotted out and used so quickly to remove any semblance of real bargaining only proves how dangerous it is if it is to be used improperly.

I do not want to debate the issue at stake in that dispute to any length tonight but I do want to remind members of the House, and those who are listening or watching or who are reading this that the federal Minister of Labour in the middle of the company's reorganization negotiations with the union, in this case the CAW, ordered

the Canadian Labour Relations Board to conduct a vote of CAW members on a company offer that was still being discussed by the elected leadership of the union.

The minister used section 107 "to seek industrial peace" and in so doing interfered directly in the negotiations between the company and its employees. It was an unprecedented move which throws into doubt the entire collective bargaining process in areas of federal jurisdiction.

The only way left to guarantee, secure or maintain confidence in the process is to delete this section of the code so that it can never be used in this fashion again. It was not only an unprecedented move but it was also almost impossible to carry out.

The Canadian Labour Relations Board ordered to carry out this directive, this vote of CAW members, had to scramble like ants under foot to try to figure out how to do it. Of course, it did not have to conduct the vote in any case because negotiations continued and in the end a supportable agreement between Canadian Airlines, the CAW membership and the Government of Canada was reached using collective bargaining, using the table for the discussions.

At the time in the House of Commons I said we were offended by the decision of the Minister of Labour to force a vote of CAW members at Canadian Airlines, which we called an unprecedented and shocking attack on workers' rights. At the same time, we said we recognized the minister's attempts to use the Canada Labour Code to protect the bungling of the Minister of Transport who seemed not to understand the real crisis facing Canadian Airlines or who chose to ignore it.

I said New Democrats recognized that the real issue at stake at the time was and still is the stability of an industry which has demonstrated that it cannot regulate itself. In taking that position I acknowledged that we care about the jobs at Canadian Airlines. We cared about the future of the industry but we were concerned that by focusing only on the concessions being demanded of the working people that the job and industrial security we all desired would be lost in the long term.

For those who remember my statement, I concluded by saying that if the federal government wanted to be involved in Canadian Airlines restructuring, it should leave the collective bargaining to the affected parties and go to the table with a real package that addresses the real problems in the industry. Obviously given the situation today that is exactly what they should have done then.

The Minister of Labour has said in relation to the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed by the government that the legislation is here to support the collective bargaining process within the federal jurisdiction. Obviously section 107 stands in the way of effective collective bargaining and therefore, by the minister's own standards, I say it should be removed.

Also, in the amendments before us today I am proposing the removal of section 108.1 for similar reasons. This section was introduced in December 1992 by the former Conservative government without warning or consultation with the labour organizations in Canada. Ironically, the rest of the legislation, Bill C-101 at the time, into which this section was incorporated, dealt with matters under Part III of the code, not Part I which we are now dealing with, which had been subject to extensive consultations with both labour and management.

Labour took the position then and continues to say today that this section represents an unwarranted intrusion into the collective bargaining process by a third party. New Democrats agree. Today, through our amendment to Bill C-66 on the floor of the House of Commons, we ask that section 108.1 be deleted. I urge support for this resolution.

The clause, as I said, was introduced without any consultation. Implicit in the clause is the belief on the part of the government that the union or bargaining team does not represent the interests or the will of the membership. By interfering in the process the minister is saying that he knows better than the elected and accountable union executive or bargaining team what is in the best interests of the union membership at the bargaining table. Such an anti-democratic interference should have no place in legislation enacted by the House of Commons.

To suppose an arbitrary decision by the Minister of Labour is a superior process to the democratic structures of trade unions is offensive and calls into question the sincerity of the government's commitment to the collective bargaining process. It calls into question the commitment of the government to upholding the rights of the democratic workplace, institutions and trade unions themselves. It must be repealed.

I should also mention that the existence of this provision in the code poses a severe threat to the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour. By giving the minister the right to intervene at any time, including after notice to collective bargaining has been given, it effectively allows the minister to circumvent the free collective bargaining process as well as the right to strike.

In conclusion, I submit that under these circumstances I can only hope that the members of the House who believe in the concept of free collective bargaining will join me in supporting these amendments so that these particularly objectionable clauses in the legislation can be removed.