I will clarify the situation on the motions. In Group No. 4, a vote on MotionNo. 11 applies to Motions Nos. 41 and 51. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 11 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 12. On the other hand, a negative vote on MotionNo. 11 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 12. So we have to wait for the result on Motion No. 11.

We will now proceed to Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 36.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 19 the following new Clause:

"25.1 Section 52 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) The rationale for the change mentioned in paragraph (3)( c ) shall include an analysis of the cost of the change, the benefits expected of the change, the effect on the organization of the work place and the proposed time schedule for implementation.

(3.2) The employer shall give the bargaining agent sufficient time to enable the bargaining agent to assess the information provided and shall supply any additional information and technological and financial explanation that the bargaining agent reasonably requests to facilitate the assessment.

(3.3) No alteration may be made to the terms and conditions or security of employment of an employee as a result of technological change unless the employer has complied with this section and an agreement on the alteration has been reached between the bargaining agent and the employer."

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 21 the following new Clause:

"29.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 68:

68.1 If a collective agreement expires and no new agreement has been made between the employer and the bargaining agent, the terms and conditions in the expired agreement shall continue to apply to the employees in the bargaining unit until a new agreement has been made."

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 32 with the following: c ) expresses a personal point of view, other than during the period an application for certification as a bargaining agent is being determined by the Board pursuant to sections 28 to 47, so''

Madam Speaker, Group No. 5 refers to three types of amendments. The first consideration relates to technological change, the second to a clause inspired by the situation in Quebec, which stipulates that a collective agreement will continue to apply until a new one has been signed. The third concerns non-targeted workers.

I would like to begin by addressing technological change. As you know, one of the paradoxes of the process we have experienced is that the government claims to have modernized the Canada Labour Code without addressing the thorny and delicate question of technological change. We are well aware that technological change impacts very heavily on the way work is organized.

I would like to give an example close to my heart, which relates to Hochelaga--Maisonneuve and, by that very fact, I would like to dedicate this example to the people in my community. Some years ago, when I was starting to get interested in politics, there were in my neighbourhood what were termed skilled labourers: machinists, a highly respected job. I am sure the hon. member for Mercier will recall that they were part of what was called the aristocracy of labourers.

Thanks to a totally new production process, a very significant change took place; a punched tape made it possible to change the organization of the work totally, which had an effect on the workers that were required.

What the Bloc Quebecois amendment proposes is to allow the unions the opportunity of having a say on how technological change will be implemented in the work place. The employer is required to give reasonable notice, after which it is stated that, if agreement is not reached on the manner in which technological change is to be implemented, this could go right up to the right to strike.

Technological change is important, because it is estimated that the life cycle of equipment in certain industries on the leading edge of technology may not exceed five years. Associated with these life cycles are major changes in terms of manufacturing processes.

It is hard to understand why the government remained silent on such a topical issue. Especially since the minister himself had put in place a round table, a discussion forum where he was told what lay ahead and what the basic trends were both in the retail trade and in the service sector. In spite of it all, the minister did not say a word on such a major issue.

Before I get to our proposal, I would like to share with you, if I may, what a very important central labour body in Quebec told the committee. I am referring, of course, to the CSN. I want you to know what its representatives made us realize in committee.

According to the CSN, only after a negotiated settlement providing for the right to strike in the event of a dispute has been reached should the provisions relating to technological change be implemented in the workplace. The CSN analysis is premised on the idea that the potential for a dispute exists and that this in itself is important enough to be considered an element in the bargaining process that could eventually lead to the exercise of the right to strike.

The definition of "technological change" should be broad enough to encompass all modern technology. It should not be defined in minute detail, but it should be clear what is meant by technological change.

After a reasonable time has elapsed-this is a legal provision found in many bills-the information provided to the union should deal with-that is why it is important to be very clear about the type of information required-all economic, technical and organizational aspects of the employer's plans, including a detailed description of the project, a cost-benefit analysis, the positions affected, a manpower assessment, the impact on work organization, and an implementation schedule.

I hope this brief excerpt from a much longer submission will convince you, Madam Speaker, and the parliamentary secretary, that this is an amendment worth considering and that the government should support it.

I want to discuss another issue before giving the floor to a colleague. Madam Speaker-and I know you have a keen interest in this issue-there is a labour code in Quebec, as in other provinces, but our province has always been something of a pioneer. Quebec never does things by halves. Get ready because, in the future, a fundamental change will take place. But this is not the time to discuss it.

I want to call the house's attention to section 59 of the Quebec labour code. If my information is accurate, section 59 provides what I would call, based on my old notions of law, an evergreen clause. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Mercier will let me say this, because she is much more familiar than I am with labour law, but it seems to me there is something tacit in what is being proposed, something akin to an evergreen clause.

What does this mean? It means that when negotiations are undertaken-and later on we will elaborate on the process proposed by the minister-since currently there is no provision in the Canada Labour Code similar to the one in section 59 of the Quebec labour code, and since the government did not want to include such a provision, workers could be deprived of the protection afforded by the evergreen clause, which provides that a collective agreement is deemed to be in effect until a new one, hopefully a negotiated one, comes into effect.

This is what our proposed amendments seek to provide. These provisions were suggested by a number of witnesses, including the CSN. I fail to see how the government could reject these amendments. One would have a hard time finding arguments against these very sound proposals.

This concludes my explanation. I am very optimistic that the government will support our amendments.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, this group includes three important motions by the Bloc Quebecois. Even if the government is not in agreement with the wording as given, it should at least try to plug some rather sizable holes in the Canada Labour Code.

The first is the absence of provisions regarding the opportunity and the right to negotiate technological change. My colleague, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, has given us a striking example of what happened in a company whose workers possessed a highly sought after skill, but a skill that became almost worthless following a technological change. This has happened extremely often and will happen increasingly in the future, given the pace of technological change.

Except that, in a business, there is nothing to prevent workers from being consulted about the introduction of new technologies, from being involved, and those who would otherwise be affected, possibly even laid off, from being protected.

Companies that have decided to involve workers in the introduction of technological change have always come out ahead. How many times has extremely costly equipment been bought without consulting workers, only to turn out to be ill adapted, to lead to serious health and safety problems in the workplace, with the result that it was necessary to make adjustments and repairs that were never satisfactory in the end? This has happened time and time again.

So responsible companies, those with experience, know that this is in their interest. I could name several in Montreal's east end who involved the union when introducing technological change, using a bargaining approach, without its being formal bargaining as provided under the code.

What we would expect of the government, which claims to want to modernize the Canada Labour Code, is for it to focus attention on this extremely important matter, for it to help businesses to be proactive, for it to use its judgment and experience, in order to indicate to them that they ought to negotiate the introduction of technological change with the union, when there is one, and when such change could result in a strike. The least that ought to be done is to ensure that there is negotiation. This is not only in the workers' best interests, but in the employer's as well.

We find the bill highly unsatisfactory in this area, as well as many others. In fact, I really wonder if this is a matter of modernizing the Canada Labour Code; to my mind, it is more of a process to make labour relations more rigid, at a time when they need to be made more flexible.

The second motion by the Bloc Quebecois is to ensure that there is not what is called in the jargon "a legal vacuum". A legal vacuum is a situation that is quite alarming for unionized workers who have the right to strike or who go out on strike and no longer have any protection whatsoever under their former collective agreement. In a legal vacuum of this type, a company could, for instance, lay people off, and they would have no defence against it. There will, of course, be an attempt to negotiate their rehiring in the back to work protocol, but this simply further complicates negotiations, as well as the settlement and the end of the strike. Thus, there are more opportunities for the law of the jungle to

govern the parties' actions. The purpose of the Canada Labour Code is to ensure that relations are clearly set out. A legal vacuum means reversion to the law of the jungle.

Naturally, each party tries to make use of this law of the jungle, according to its strength. But how much better would it be if the code itself were to provide, in some way, for the old collective agreement to be carried over until a new one replaced it so as to avoid a legal vacuum. In Quebec, the option exists, and, in the public sector, there is no legislative gap whatsoever.

Finally, the third motion of the Bloc is aimed at describing the new freedom. Some will say that the new code gives employers an opportunity to talk to their employees, as defined in the jurisprudence of the Canada board. We, however, are very concerned that this provision does not exclude the period in which an application is made for certification.

This definition or attempt to determine the relationship between employer and employee in terms of information, must exclude the period of the application for certification. I hope the secretary of state will heed my arguments. It is essential that the application period be excluded. In this period, as we know, words do not have the same weight, and an employer's silences and gestures can be pregnant with meaning. Intimidation can take many forms.

We really hope the parliamentary secretary will listen to our arguments and not introduce more problems in labour relations, where there are already enough problems.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

March 3rd, 1997 / 3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to support the motions of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. The first motion concerns renewal of the previous collective agreement until the new agreement is signed.

This provision did not exist before in Quebec, and this certainly caused a lot of problems. We were faced with a legal vacuum. Do the employer's management rights apply during this interval? Can the employer fire employees without observing the collective agreement? Finally, thanks to the labour movement's demands, the labour code was amended.

In Quebec today, there is a provision for tacit renewal of a collective agreement until the new agreement is signed and comes into effect. After expiry of the previous collective agreement, it can sometimes take a long time, months and even years, before the new agreement is signed. There must be some degree of stability in labour relations during that time.

The second motion of the Bloc Quebecois concerns technological change. This is a very important question. During the past 20 or 30 years, we have seen spectacular technological changes taking place in business and industry. Of course, employees want to have some control over the technological changes that in most cases affect them to a very considerable extent. On the other hand, employers want to be in full control of these changes.

I agree with the request by the Bloc Quebecois that unions be given reasonable notice before such changes are introduced. Sometimes when technological change occurs, and this has been the case in the past 20 or 30 years, dozens and even hundreds of people have been laid off. People will lose their jobs because new equipment has been purchased and new production processes are being introduced.

Usually when a collective agreement is signed, labour relations and terms and conditions of employment remain stable until the new agreement is negotiated. Most labour codes provide that technological changes can be negotiated even if the collective agreement has yet to expire.

The United States has legal provisions that are sometimes very advanced, and the Canada Labour Code would do well to take a leaf from this legislation. The important thing is to associate workers with the introduction of these changes. Sometimes the changes do not work because they were introduced unilaterally by the employer without the consent of and without prior notice to the workers.

As the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve said earlier, the CNTU submitted a brief which contains excellent recommendations in this respect. Prior notice should be given before proceeding with such changes. It is imperative to negotiate. If an agreement is reached, the changes may proceed, but if not, the parties may avail themselves of their right to strike or lock out. It is equally important to agree on the concept of technological change because definitions vary in some labour codes.

We need a definition that is sufficiently broad to cover fundamental technological changes. A notice of technological change must state all the necessary information to be assessed by the unions and the workers, with detailed explanations. This information must include the costs, the impact, especially on the employees, as well as a schedule. This is why I totally agree with the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.

Since I still have a few minutes left, I would like to briefly mention a problem that we have in my riding. I am referring to Zellers, which announced last week that it will be closing its distribution centre in Montreal North and laying off 379 workers. This is a tragedy for Montreal North, where a third of the

population is already unemployed. Poverty in my riding is at a very high level.

Zellers has made huge profits. Along with its parent company, the Bay, its sales exceeded $1 billion in 1995. Zellers now wants to close because the building is too old. In recent years, Zellers has introduced technological changes which have been accepted and implemented by the unions. It now claims that the building is too old. Most of these jobs will go to Ontario, to Scarborough in particular. This closing will generate incredible suffering.

I think the federal government certainly bears some responsibility for this closing. The Liberal government was elected on a promise that it would create jobs, jobs, jobs. Now, jobs are eliminated everywhere, at Greenberg's, at Steinberg's last year, at Eaton's and now at Zellers.

I call on the Minister of Industry to try to convince this company to change its decision and remain in activity in Montreal North. I also plead with the President of the Treasury Board, who pays regular visits to Quebec to tell people that this is the government that created the greatest number of jobs, even if this is not the case at all. There is more unemployment today than under the Conservative government.

Above all, I call on the Minister of Labour, who introduced this Bill C-66 in the House. His riding is next to my riding of Bourassa. He represents the riding of Saint-Léonard and comes over in my riding to play politics, to support the Liberal candidate. He should also take care of problems like job creation and the closing of Zellers in Montreal North. This is a human tragedy. We should all make efforts to ensure that Zellers remains in activity in Montreal North and, most of all, to stop the transfer of jobs from Quebec to Ontario.

I think that is what the federal government says, especially today, as the President of the Treasury Board accused us of creating instability. It is the federal government that is really creating instability, when it says that there is a separatist in Quebec and that it discourages entrepreneurs. This is not true. There is a lot of instability in Korea, but this country has never had as much foreign investment. The same thing is true for China. In China, there are human rights violations, but everybody wants to invest in China.

This is an excuse. I urge the federal government to get involved in these matters to try to keep Zellers in Montreal North.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Hillsborough P.E.I.

Liberal

George Proud LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the topic, the official opposition put forward Motion No. 13, as we heard earlier, in order to amend the process provided in the code for dealing with technological changes introduced while a collective agreement is in force.

One of the amendments proposed would prohibit the employer from implementing the technological changes until an agreement is reached with the union. The process currently provided in the Canada Labour Code applies only when the parties have not included in their collective agreement their own process for dealing with the impact of technological changes on the job security of bargaining unit employees.

Under the statutory process, if the employer and the trade union are unable to agree on the implementation of the proposed changes, the union may ask the board for authorization to serve notice to bargain for the purpose of revising relevant provisions of the collective agreement.

Where such an application is made to the board, the employer may not implement the changes until the board either rejects the application, or an agreement is reached through the collective bargaining process, or the right to strike, or the right to lockout is acquired.

The collective bargaining context has changed since the technological change provisions were first introduced in 1973. At the time, few if any collective agreements included mechanisms to address the impact of technological changes on job security. Today unions and employers routinely include their own mechanisms in their collective agreements designed to address significant changes in the workplace which impact on the job security of bargaining unit employees.

This underlines the party's preference to deal with such changes through processes they design themselves. This also explains why the Sims task force, in reviewing the current technological change provisions in the code, concluded that no statutory changes were needed.

Motion No. 14, the freeze on terms and conditions, put forward by the official opposition, would basically prohibit the employer from changing the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement after the right to strike and lockout had been acquired so that the terms and conditions would continue to apply until a new agreement was entered into.

Under the provisions of the code, the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement must be maintained during the negotiation process until the right to strike or a lockout is acquired. After that point in the bargaining cycle, an employer, subject to the continuing duty to bargain in good faith, may change terms and conditions while the employees are entitled to initiate strike action.

The Simms task force carefully examined the issue of what is commonly referred as the freeze period and concluded that an extension of the statutory freeze was not needed. The task force noted that the parties are free to include a bridging provision in their collective agreement providing for a continuation of terms

and conditions of employment beyond the date strike and lockout rights are acquired. However, such bridging clauses cannot be used by an employer to prevent a union from exercising legally acquired strike rights or by a union to prevent an employer from exercising legally acquired lockout rights.

Other changes in the bill will maintain terms and conditions for those employees who will be required to continue working during a work stoppage in order to maintain those activities that are necessary to protect public health and safety or to provide services to grain vessels.

Given the other provisions included in Bill C-66 that will protect the basic rights of employees on strike or locked out to continue group insurance coverage and give them access to arbitration for cases of dismissal or discipline, the extension of the freeze period up to the date of the conclusion of the new collective agreement would not represent a fair balance of the competing rights involved.

The official opposition has submitted Motion No. 36 that would prohibit employers from expressing their views during the period when representation rights are being determined by the board. According to the new paragraph 94(2)(c) which implements the recommendation of the task force, an employer will be deemed not to commit an unfair labour practice by expressing its views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

Several provincial labour laws already recognize explicitly the employers' right to express their views subject to similar limitations.

Under the current section 94 of the code, it is an unfair labour practice for an employer to interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union. Section 94(2) describes certain permitted employer actions.

Although section 94(2) provides no explicit exception for non-coercive employer speech, the law has never been that employers must remain absolutely silent. Accordingly, the Canada Labour Relations Board, in interpreting the general prohibition of employer interference, has implied the concept of free speech and placed similar restrictions as its provincial counterparts.

Bill C-66 will therefore confirm the Canada Industrial Relations Board's responsibility to balance the employer's freedom of speech with the competing employee's freedom of association which are both guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that the board is in the best position to define the parameters of employer free speech and the appropriate standard, taking into account the context in which the speech issue arises and the nature of the collective bargaining relationship.

We are confident that this new provision will in no way diminish the union's exclusive right to represent employees and we therefore ask the members of the House to support it.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on a point of order.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the parliamentary secretary may have unwittingly misled the House. I would like to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I am sorry, but this seems to be a point for debate, not a point of order. If the hon. member wants to take part in the debate, I believe he has already done so on this group, he will be able to join in the discussions when we debate the next group. If the hon. parliamentary secretary is willing to answer a question, he might do so with the House's permission, but this will require unanimous consent.

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to put a question to the parliamentary secretary?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

I felt some disbelief on your part Mr. Speaker, but I do want you to know that I only have friends in this House.

The parliamentary secretary implied that Motion No. 14 moved by the official opposition, which derives from section 50 of the Quebec labour code, as I explained, is a clause providing for tacit reconduction of any collective agreement coming to an end so that it remains in force until a new agreement is signed. It is also known as an evergreen clause.

If the interpreters did justice to what the parliamentary secretary meant, he told us that these provisions already exist in the labour code and that all collective agreements are deemed to remain in force until such time as a new agreement comes into effect.

Is the parliamentary secretary still saying that the amendment we proposed is useless because the collective agreement remains in force and because there already is a tacit reconduction clause? Would he be willing to table, for the benefit of the official opposition, the legal opinion which supports this point of view, because it does not agree with testimony given by witnesses we heard in committee.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Hillsborough P.E.I.

Liberal

George Proud LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, under the current provisions of the code, the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement

must be maintained during the negotiation process or until the right to strike or lockout is acquired.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, after reviewing this group of amendments it seems to me that most of the information put forward by our colleagues from the Bloc concerns matters that should be negotiated in a collective agreement.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the old agreement should stay in place until such time as negotiations break down and a strike vote or lockout has taken place. I would suggest that it is best for this to remain as it is. I am not willing to support Motion No. 14.

Motion No. 13 is something that should be negotiated between the two interested parties.

In my estimation, Motion No. 36 is very basic. It is about free speech. Some restrictions have been placed already on employers concerning what it takes to certify a union and what does not, what is coercion and what is undue pressure on employees. We must be very careful not to infringe on the rights of people to free speech and expression. In any campaign where for the certification or decertification of a union there will be some lobbying, some campaigning on behalf of both parties. I think that is natural. To not state the pros and cons and the possible outcome which could result is not much different from a political campaign. A scenario has to be laid out, a position and a plan put forward.

I do not see it being much different in these cases. Most of the stuff we are talking about in the three amendments are things that should be negotiated between employer and employee.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.