Debates of Feb. 19th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to take a bit of a different approach from the other opposition parties who have spoken already. Both the official opposition and the Bloc Quebecois have spoken against Bill C-19 for very different reasons. The NDP caucus is in favour of Bill C-19 and I would like to elaborate on some of the reasons we have taken that position.

I concur with many of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. He spoke at length about the spirit of co-operation and consultation that went into arriving at the changes to the Canada Labour Code contained in Bill C-19. That in itself is a process we want to recognize and value for future consultations. By all accounts it was truly comprehensive and thorough. All the people who should have been spoken to were and had ample opportunity to make their views known. I do not think we could have done a more comprehensive job in consultation around the country.

It has been noted already that the Canada Labour Code provides a framework for collective bargaining for over 700,000 Canadian workers. It is incumbent on us to move speedy passage of Bill C-19 for those 700,000 workers who will benefit from much of the new amendments and changes to the code in making their workplaces more fair, more balanced and more equitable.

Bill C-19 and its predecessor bill, Bill C-66, represent the first significant amendments to this legislation since the early 1970s. This is a review which we both welcome but think is long overdue.

As has been said, in June 1995 the task force chaired by Andrew Sims conducted a complete review of the code and recommended these legislative changes. The task force held public hearings and the working group of labour and management officials was able to reach consensus on a number of key issues. Its report “Seeking a Balance” was publicly released in February of 1996 and in April of that year the Minister of Labour held meetings in a variety of locations to hear the views of all interested parties who cared to make a contribution.

Bill C-66, unfortunately, was awaiting third reading in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved for the federal election. Were it not for that we would be enjoying some of the benefits of the bill today.

To his credit, the current Minister of Labour has continued consultations with interested parties and while there have been changes to the wording of a few provisions, notably those dealing with replacement workers and off site workers, we are satisfied that these changes do not substantially alter the intent of the clauses and we are therefore pleased to report that our caucus can support Bill C-19. Like most Canadians, we look forward to its speedy passage through the House of Commons.

I commend those who participated in the process from labour, management and government for the work they have done in arriving at these changes. I believe they have demonstrated a spirit of co-operation which is essential when dealing in matters of industrial relations, and their ability to do so bodes well for the long term stability which we all seek to achieve in this country's labour relations climate.

The NDP caucus believes that the Canada Labour Code, like any labour relations act, can and should be an instrument which fosters industrial relations harmony, economic stability and labour peace. We believe that the proposed amendments bring this legislation that much closer to those principles.

We commend the proposed amendments which call for the establishment of a truly representational Canada industrial labour relations board composed of a neutral chair and members from both labour and management. We believe this is a positive step which will more closely resemble the composition of provincial labour relations boards and which will be very much a vast improvement over the current Canada Labour Relations Board.

We also applaud the fact that the newly configured board will be given greater flexibility to deal quickly with urgent or time sensitive matters. It will be a dramatic improvement when a single vice-chair will be able to determine some cases rather than waiting for the current three member panel which would be required to hear cases in the current configuration.

The current board structure has often been unable to respond quickly to matters brought before it, even when a delay can seriously jeopardize the case of the applicant, and we are critical that as many as 90 applications for certification are currently pending and waiting to be heard, especially when it is well known and well documented that unreasonable delays often cause the erosion of the applicant union's support in matters of application for certification. We feel this situation is unfair to working people who have applied to be represented by a union of their choice and we hope that the matter can be corrected quickly by the introduction of these amendments.

Proposals under the category of representation and successor rights recognize the right of the employers to communicate with employees during union organizing drives. We caution the government that the proposed language in this clause has not been tested and that there is a great deal of room for abuse in provisions of this kind.

Anyone who is familiar with industrial relations knows that it is common practice for employers to try to thwart union organizing drives by using threats of plant closure, layoff or other negative consequences which are allegedly stemming from the employees' choice to form or join a union.

It is our belief that employers should be barred completely from communicating with employees in any matter pertaining to their right to join or to form a union. Even the most subtle interference by an employer can intimidate an employee in these situations.

For these reasons we are glad that other amendments in Bill C-19 enable the board to remedy such unfair labour practices by granting automatic certification to an applicant union despite lack of evidence of majority support from the employees if the board is of the opinion that unfair labour practices such as threats or intimidation or coercion have made it impossible to determine the true wishes of the employees by use of a secret ballot because they fear some kind of negative reprisal from the employer.

This provision is similar to what already exists in a number of provincial jurisdictions and it is very important and key to the fairness of the whole organizing process.

Another important provision under this category enables the board to give an applicant union a list of names and addresses of off site employees who might work at home or some place other than the normal work place.

This amendment we feel reflects the changing nature of the workplace, and more and more workers have non-traditional work arrangements and may not be present at an employer's main workplace when a union organizer comes to distribute information.

So it is only fair and reasonable that these workers who work at home or elsewhere should have access to the same information, the same literature the union might be promoting in the same way that it is only fair that they have a right to accept or reject the union's overtures. The union should have the right to communicate with all the employees in the bargaining unit and we applaud this measure.

Bill C-19 also contains positive amendments designed to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties during legal strikes and lockouts. It is understood there will be no general prohibition on the use of scabs during a legal strike or lockout. The use of scabs for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity will be considered an unfair labour practice.

I agree fully with the previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois that this language does not go far enough to protect the rights of workers and in fact many unions that made representation to the Sims task force spoke very strongly that absolute anti-scab legislation was necessary in any fair and civilized country that truly is trying to balance its labour relations climate. The province of Quebec is a good example, and I am glad the previous speaker spoke very eloquently about the impact of anti-scab legislation in that province.

It is true the statistics and the empirical evidence bear out the fact that anti-scab legislation results in fewer strikes, shorter strikes, less picket line violence, in fact no picket lines because you do not need a picket line. Picket lines are designed to keep scabs out. It is simply the right thing to do.

We are very disappointed and we are very critical that Bill C-19 does not give workers the satisfaction. We are certainly not satisfied that we have done enough in this regard. This provision falls well short of true anti-scab legislation. At best it is a very weak compromise position. It just barely recognizes the legitimacy of the arguments associated with the use of scabs in strikes and lockouts. The empirical evidence is easily available from as close as the province of Quebec.

Obviously we wish this language were much stronger. It is not meant to be in this round of amendments to the labour code. As such, there was a great deal of give and take and compromise in the development of these amendments. This is one of those things not meant to be in 1997.

We are, however, pleased that the code will guarantee that employees who are on strike or locked out will return to work before any scabs hired to replace them. In other words, there will be job protection for employees who are forced out of their jobs by either strike or lockout. They will go back to work first of course and they will have priority in any hiring.

The jury is in on this one. There can be no doubt of the basic fairness of this issue. I think even my colleague from the Reform Party would have to agree that it is only right and it is only fair.

It is clear that a great deal of time and energy was spent by the task force looking for ways to ensure that work stoppages do not endanger public health and safety, and also to maintain grain exports during work stoppages involving port operations. Those two things were key and paramount and had to be dealt with.

Under the new legislation the parties will be required to maintain certain services necessary to prevent danger to public health or safety during a work stoppage.

While the grain handlers and their employers will retain the right to strike and the right to lockout, services to grain vessels will be maintained. That point should be made very clearly and people should understand that there is nothing to stop the grain handlers or their employers from striking. It is not a no-strike clause. But grain will continue to go through even if there is a strike or a lockout or a work stoppage of any kind.

We feel this aspect of the code is of great interest to the farm community, to the agricultural industry and to the Canadian economy in general. These changes will address once and for all concerns about work stoppages interfering with the marketing of our grain exports and I am confident that all parties can see the value in this amendment.

Again, this is one of those areas where there was a great deal of generosity and good will and compromise from all the parties around the table because it was brought as an issue to the task force. The task force recognized that it is in the common good that grain should go through and in fact it has resolved it once and for all.

It is the nature of this type of legislation that we are never going to please everybody and no stakeholder is going to be fully satisfied that all of their concerns are addressed, but in this instance I suggest it is the best we can do and I hope all the parties can see fit to support it on this basis if for no other reason.

Even they do not like other aspects of this bill, this clause alone, the movement of grain, is of such critical importance that all parties should be getting behind Bill C-19 to deal with it.

However, in the case of Bill C-19, we are doing better than average. A diverse cross-section of associations and organizations approve of Bill C-19. They range fully from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the Canadian Labour Congress and all the groups in between. They believe that these amendments to Bill C-19 are the right thing to do and are a positive step forward.

We are optimistic that all the parties in the House of Commons can see the value of these amendments to the Canada Labour Code and will vote in favour of Bill C-19 when called on to do so.

We should always remember that we have an enviable labour relations climate in this country. As the Minister of Labour pointed out, almost all negotiations under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code are resolved with no time lost and no strike, no lockout, no labour unrest whatsoever. A figure as high as 95% to 97% of all the bargaining and all the collective agreements are settled peacefully and amicably with both parties getting what they need through the collective bargaining process.

It is a myth that the country loses significant productivity due to strikes and lockouts. We will often have negative people saying this. In actual fact in the province of Manitoba we lose about 50,000 person days a year to strikes and lockouts. It sounds like a lot, except we lose 500,000 days a year to workplace injuries, accidents and illness.

If we are really serious about productivity and about the economic impact of lost time due to work stoppages, cleaning up our work places would do a lot more good than being a nattering nabob and griping about strikes and lockouts all the time when in actual fact it is a myth. We have created a tempest in a teapot for ideological reasons. The actual facts do not bear it out.

Those who criticize this country's labour laws and regulations and those who think that unions cause a lot of strikes and lockouts usually do not know the facts. They do not know the facts and figures like the numbers I just gave.

The facts are collective bargaining does not in itself cause a significant loss of productive time. Therefore measures are not necessary to try to address that. It is unsafe workplaces, I argue, that cause the significant loss of productivity.

Our caucus supports the changes to part I of the labour code but we ask this government to go further. We ask this government to move quickly to review part II and part III of the Canada Labour Code, and some steps in those directions are already under way, so that we can really update and revamp the entire code to make it a more balanced and fair piece of legislation, especially in the case of part II which deals with workplace safety and health.

The time has come for Canadians to take seriously the issue of workplace safety and health, if not for ethical reasons or the obvious downside of people getting injured, for the economic reasons I have pointed out, the hundreds of thousands of productive days lost to workplace injuries. Surely if we can put a man on the moon we can design methods of production that do not result in significant harm to workers.

It has always been a sore point for me that workplace injuries and workplace deaths rarely make the newspapers. If someone is stabbed or murdered in the streets of Winnipeg it is going to be front page news. However if someone is injured on the job, we somehow resign ourselves to the fact that some industries are dangerous, people get hurt, accidents happen. This is simply not true. We cannot tolerate it and we should not be tolerating that kind of an attitude.

In Manitoba there are fatal workplace accidents every year. There are enough amputated limbs, digits and toes to fill a pick-up truck every year. It is a graphic illustration about how unsafe our workplaces really are. We really do not know how many are slowly being poisoned by some kind of chemical soup they are forced to work with or the impact of various types of chemicals when harmless chemical A meets with harmless chemical B and if our kidneys create chemical C which is in fact harmful to the workers.

Maybe I am hypersensitive about this particular issue. When I was young, age 18 to 20, I worked in the asbestos mines in the Yukon. At that time asbestos was not recognized as an occupational hazard. Workers compensation did not cover asbestos because it denied it was bad for us. When we asked if it was true that this stuff was supposed to be bad for us, the foreman would say “No, it is harmless so do not worry about it”. As a result we were covered with the stuff. It gets up your nose, it gets in your ears, it gets under your armpits and it is on your clothes when you go home.

In actual fact, within two years of quitting the mine and being lied to by those people who did know better, an announcement was made internationally that there was no such thing as a safe level asbestos. One part per billion is too much asbestos. It is carcinogenic and it is hazardous at any level.

That is the kind of example we are dealing with. We do not know how many substances are like that in workplaces. It is that much more critical that we have to revamp the labour code to offer real, solid protection to Canadian workers.

We do have WHMIS. We have WHMIS legislation. We have the right to refuse unsafe work. We do not have it updated and modernized and clearly stated so that it can act in a way that will protect the interest of working people.

As much as we are in favour of part I of the code, we strongly encourage the government to move quickly on part II and part III, finish the job and move forward with it.

In terms of workers and taking care of themselves in hazardous conditions, any further amendments to the code must have some recognition of whistle blowing protection. Workers do not dare sound the alarm for unsafe conditions for fear of being slapped with a lawsuit.

I speak again from my personal background. I shut down a job one time because the scaffolding was so dangerous that it was a hazard to the people working there. Within a few days that same scaffolding fell over on to the emergency room of a hospital. It punctured the roof, caused half a million dollars in damage and almost killed a bunch of people waiting for medical services in the emergency room.

The case went to court, the judge found the company not guilty and there was no fault or blame assigned. The company sued me for turning the company in and saying that it had unsafe working conditions on site. It wanted $80,000 damages because I damaged the reputation of the company by saying its scaffolding was unsafe when it fell over on to the hospital. I was okay. I was working for a union and the union picked up my tab. Normal workers do not have that protective umbrella. Without some kind of whistle blowing protection they would never be able to protect themselves.

We urge the speedy passage of Bill C-19.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, we are going to have questions and comments for 10 minutes. I see two members standing so we will split their time.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg Centre that Bill C-19 is good legislation. I am not sure about the amendments, but the bill is good. I disagree with him on the remark he made about asbestos.

There are countries in Europe that are currently proposing banning asbestos. That would be devastating for asbestos workers across Canada. It is based on the same misinformation that the member for Winnipeg Centre cited.

In fact the International Labour Organization in Geneva, with which the Canadian labour union movement operates very, very closely, has developed a convention that has been approved by the ILO. It talks about the safe use of asbestos and ways of applying and installing asbestos safely. I would ask the member to please check his facts on that.

I would like to comment briefly if I could on the comments earlier by the Reform labour critic. We have had this debate before in this House very briefly. It has to do with final offer selection arbitration. Again I come back and ask the member, if there is a system where they either accept one position or the other, it seems to me that what there is is one happy party and one unhappy party. I am not sure that is the way we should solve labour disputes in Canada.

I am reminded again of some of the ironies of Reform policy positions. On the one hand, they will say we should let the market decide, but there are big exceptions when it comes to labour negotiations when it affects prairie farmers. I would have to say at the outset I have a lot of empathy with the plight of the prairie farmers when it comes to getting their product to market, and all Canadians do. On the one hand they say to let the market decide and on the other hand they say when it comes to labour-management negotiations as it affects wheat shipments to the ports that we should put in this final offer selection arbitration where neither party will be happy with the results.

I think we should pause and reflect on these proposals by the members opposite.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the issue about the safe levels of asbestos. There is no safe level of asbestos. One part per billion is unsafe. There are handling procedures. It is much like a class 4 virology laboratory. Everything has to be double sealed in a pressurized environment. Workers have to change their clothes as they go into the chambers and when they go out.

It is so complicated that the cost of removing asbestos in a building 20 years old is greater than the cost of building the building.

I know a lot about asbestos. We teach the courses on how to work safely with asbestos with our union because sometimes it is unavoidable.

In the building I am in, the Wellington Building, they are trying to remove the asbestos from that building because they are concerned that one part per billion in the air will cause hazards.

There is a famous case of a little girl who would ride her bicycle to the mine in Asbestos, Quebec to bring her father his lunch only during the summer holidays. Maybe a couple of times a year she would bring her dad his lunch to the mine. She wound up with asbestosis after the 20-year incubation period. There is no safe limit.

It is criminal for countries to be dumping asbestos into the third world and everyone knows it.

If I could just quickly comment on final offer selection, I have very strong views about final offer selection. I have used final offer selection in my own collective bargaining where it was allowed under the legislation in the province of Manitoba. It is not a solution. It is not a magic bullet. The Reform Party keeps revisiting this as though it is some new idea. It is nowhere near a new idea. It is not even a very good idea. It has very limited value in the labour relations climate and that is why it is rarely used.

I would have to agree with the previous speaker that final offer selection is highly overrated. It is a tool in the tool chest of labour relations practitioners who can use it if they both see fit. But any time it is legislated, it will lose its value and it will corrupt the whole labour relations process.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member from Winnipeg and his comments rather alarming in the sense that he is from an agricultural province and he sure does not understand the system when it comes to the unions and how they can tie up grain as it moves across the country.

I have a couple of questions. One specific question I would like to ask the member is if the brotherhood of electrical workers decides to go on strike and the other unions, the maintenance of way, the Canadian Auto Workers, the stevadores who may load the ship, and the grain handlers do not, does he think for one minute that any of those other unions are not going to cross the picket line in support of their brothers?

I find it rather alarming that he would even suggest to this House and to those who are listening that the unions are not that tightly bound and that this legislation does not solve that problem.

Being that the member is from an agricultural province, I can be certain about one thing, he knows absolutely nothing about grain handling.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

He is from Manitoba.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

So what if he is from Manitoba, that is an agricultural province is it not? He is not speaking on behalf of the farmers, nor does he even understand the losses that farmers have obtained through these kinds of foolish antics where the unions have tied up grain movement across the western provinces to the port of Vancouver.

How is the member, and the members across the way who formulated this legislation, going to see that the interests of the farmers are being paid attention to?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer as best I can, but I found it to be a very convoluted question. The member does not fully understand what is going on here in terms of Bill C-19.

Bill C-19 states that even if there is a strike or a lockout from any of those unions that are under federal jurisdiction, grain will continue to be shipped with no interruption not only to the port but loaded onto ships and beyond. The member does not fully understand. The changes to this are making his argument for him. Bill C-19 means that grain will move even if any one of those unions or all of those unions go on strike.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

It does not.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, it is true. The grain will be loaded onto the ships and it will be shipped out.

The member is saying that other unions will cross the picket line to go with their brothers. I do not think he really understands how labour relations work.

The province of Manitoba does have a great agricultural industry. I have grown up with it so I probably know as much about it as the member does. I do not think he really did his homework or he would not be so flummoxed about this whole situation.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

You haven't done yours.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You are wrong. You are fundamentally wrong. You are absolutely wrong.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, severeal months after indicating its intent to introduce a bill to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code, the government has finally got around to introducing Bill C-19 in the House.

One might have thought that, after such a long wait, the government would have made some constructive changes. One might have thought that it would also have taken the time to amend its bill so as to respond to the legitimate concerns voiced on all sides during the last Parliament. But no.

In June 1995 the Minister of Labour appointed a task force of labour relations experts chaired by Andrew Sims to conduct an independent review and recommend changes to part I of the Canada Labour Code. Its report “Seeking a Balance”, also referred to as the Sims report, was released in February 1996.

After consultation with unions and business representatives, the former Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-66 in November 1996 during the last Parliament. Bill C-66 was rushed through the House of Commons. The Senate social affairs committee gave it careful consideration and PC senators outlined major flaws in the bill, especially with respect to replacement workers, off site workers and union certification without the majority vote.

On November 6, 1997 the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-19, vastly similar to its predecessor Bill C-66. The minor amendments proposed to the bill do not go far enough to allay some of the concerns raised during the last Parliament.

Unfortunately, the government chose to make half-hearted changes. Instead of concerning itself with developing the best legislation possible, it chose the easy route.

This is a great pity, for the bill we are examining is intended to substantially modernize industrial relations. This is the first time in 25 years that part I of the Canada Labour Code has undergone a thorough revision.

That is one more reason to make sure the proposed changes stand up to the closest of scrutinies. If we have to wait another 25 years for any changes to this bill, let us make sure that the proposed amendments are properly tailored to the reality of today's and tomorrow's work place.

Our actions throughout this entire process will be prompted by that concern, to develop a bill that is fair and equitable for all. The Sims report is entitled “Seeking a Balance”, and that is what we too are seeking, a balance between interests and parties.

Like a number of the others who have spoken out, we too hope that the government will make an effort to resist the temptation to ram this bill through without allowing the lawmakers time to analyze the impact of these amendments.

Let us be perfectly clear, it is not our wish to delay passage of this bill unduly. What we do want is for all parties concerned to have the opportunity to bring out their points of view.

We know how important the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code are. As I indicated earlier, we have legitimate concerns, which we hope to address in greater detail at subsequent stages of this bill.

For the moment, our reservations are such that we cannot vote in favour of this bill as this stage in the legislative process.

One of the concerns we have with the bill as it stands deals with replacement workers. Understandably this is one of the most contentious issues for all parties concerned. For the Sims task force this issue is one of the few on which the authors could not agree.

One of the authors argued in favour of a complete ban on the use of replacement workers, as is the case in labour legislation in Quebec and British Columbia.

The majority argued against a general ban on the use of replacement workers and said:

There should be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers.

Where the use of replacement workers in a dispute is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's representative capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, this should be declared an unfair labour practice.

In the event of a finding of such an unfair labour practice, the Board should be given the specific remedial power to prohibit the future use of replacement workers in a dispute.

Bill C-66 did not stipulate clearly that there was no ban on the use of replacement workers. Instead it stated that no employer or person shall use the services of a replacement worker for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

During Senate hearings no one seemed to know how the terms of the bill would be interpreted. For instance, this is what Nancy Riche of the Canadian Labour Congress had to say:

“This is a very interesting clause but no one seems to know how it will be interpreted. We will know that only after the first case has been heard by the CIRB.”

What constitutes an unfair labour practice and what constitutes undermining a trade union's representational capacity were left in the air for the new Canada Industrial Relations Board to interpret.

In their report senators from all parties urged the new CIRB to respect the findings of the Sims task force in interpreting and applying the provisions concerning replacement workers.

As a result the government made changes to the replacement workers provisions in Bill C-19. The bill now stipulates that no employer or person shall use a replacement worker for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives.

While this formulation comes closer to what the Sims task force had in mind, in our opinion it is still not made clear enough that it is an exceptional measure meant to address reprehensible behaviour on the part of an employer.

As senators argued in Bill C-66, there is a fundamental difference between using replacement workers to ensure that the employer may carry on its normal business during a strike and using them for the purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity. The mere use of replacement workers does not in and of itself raise the presumption of unfair bargaining practices. These arguments still ring true in Bill C-19.

The bill as it stands does not properly address the meaning of the wording used. As further evidence, here is what the Ottawa Citizen has said about these provisions in its November 21, 1997 editorial. It stated:

Technically, the ban (on replacement workers) would apply only to workers whose employment would undermine the “representational capacity” of the union.

But since strikes are a tool unions use in representing workers, and replacement workers make strikes less effective, it is hard to imagine any of them that would not fit that definition—

Furthermore, an article in the Financial Post expressed the following concerns:

—now that they've had time to read the fine print, the major industries affected aren't so pleased—The revised code will still allow federally regulated industries, some of which are key to keeping the economy running, to use replacement workers during a strike or lockout, but not if it is seen to undermine a union's representational capacity.

What this means exactly isn't entirely clear. Also, the wording of this provision may prevent management transferring people from other parts of the company to keep operations going.

Another big concern of ours has to do with unions having access to lists of off site workers.

The Sims work force recognized the need to balance the opportunity for off site workers to consider the benefits of collective bargaining or take advantage of these benefits against their right to privacy and personal security.

With Bill C-66, the government legislated that the new Canada industrial relations board may provide an authorized representative of a labour union a list of the names and addresses of employees who normally work at home for an employer and allow this representative to contact them.

Even though the minister stated he had consulted the Department of Justice to make sure the privacy of off site workers would not be jeopardized, the Senate committee heard the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who had serious reservations about the provisions of the bill.

The minister at the time even suggested that the privacy commissioner's concerns were not legitimate. He tried to minimize them by intimating that they arose from management lobbying.

However, the offices of the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner are independent offices, accountable to Parliament and no one else, the same way that the auditor general is for instance. By minimizing these concerns, the minister could justify sweeping them under the carpet.

Granted, the current minister tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to correct the situation with Bill C-19. He added a statutory prohibition on the use of information provided under this clause.

In addition, he further defined the board's power to release information to off site workers or to instruct the employer to do so through its electronic communications system.

Unfortunately, these amendments do not appear to be enough. This time, the minister's officials consulted with the privacy commissioner, who said that he still had some reservations about the provisions of the bill, particularly the infamous clauses 50 and 54.

I am running out of time so I will only address one other issue of concern even though there are more. It is the case of the new board's ability to allow certification without a majority of employees having voted for unionization. The board can do this if it feels there has been an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. In Bill C-19 the legislation remains unchanged on this point.

In the 1997 election we proposed to strengthen worker protection under federal labour laws giving workers more democratic powers by requiring secret ballots and votes on union representations and decisions.

Such reforms were enacted by former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain. They have proven so popular with workers that they are now endorsed by the Labour Party under Tony Blair.

Instead of ensuring more democratic power to workers, the government has chosen the way of ill-conceived legislation that has proven to have bizarre interpretations in other jurisdictions, to say the least.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a situation that occurred recently in Windsor where the Ontario Labour Relations Board, armed with provisions similar to those in Bill C-19, ruled that a minority of workers could impose their will on the majority because of an alleged unfair labour practice on the part of management.

What was the unfair labour practice? The managers of the store asked whether it would close if it were unionized, followed legal advice and refused to comment. What were they supposed to say? A yes almost certainly would have been judged to be intimidation, but a no would have led to lawsuits had higher labour cost in fact put the store out of business.

It would also have helped the union's case immeasurably, which an employer should not be obligated to do. In the OLRB's view, the managers' refusal to answer was such a grievous violation of workers' rights that it invalidated not only this but any future vote.

Since the managers could not avoid unfair labour practices by saying yes, saying no or saying nothing, it is reasonably clear that legislation of this sort has some peculiar implications.

Knowing the implications of such provisions, we should be wary of enacting the same ones here.

I will end by touching very briefly on a few other issues that concern us regarding the bill.

We support the provisions to the effect that the grain would continue to move in the event of a work stoppage at ports. However, we are prepared to look at the impact of extending this protection to other sectors.

We also feel that the repeal of part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act is suspicious and could deprive Canadians of valuable information on unions.

These issues and many more will be reviewed when Bill C-19 is examined in committee. Again, I hope we can conduct a serious and thorough review of this bill. It will ensure the quality of the legislation passed by this House.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments. I would like his opinion on a couple of points that have not been addressed in a thorough manner. They deal with the old board with a new name.

This board has a fair amount of power and yet does not seem to have an opportunity for any kind of recourse for a decision that it may make, regardless of how it may impact on either of the parties. In other words, there is no appeal, for the most part.

First of all, with the power granted to this board it can certify a union, for one thing, without the consent of the majority of the employees. I am curious about the member's opinion on that point.

The CIRB can also order an employer to release to the union the names and addresses of off site employees, which again can be done without employee consent. Again, there is a fair amount of power associated with that kind of decision making. I am wondering what the member thinks of that.

Another point has always been a concern here, especially so since the Liberal government has a tendency to really love these quasi-judicial bodies. They can make decisions and the minister can stand up in the House and say “I cannot do anything about that. That is a quasi-judicial body and I cannot interfere with any decisions it makes”. And there are lots of them over there.

It takes away the responsibility of the minister in dealing with the issue at hand. In other words, he is no longer accountable. I see the same kind of events taking place here with this new labour relations board.

When the board makes a decision, its intents and purposes are supposed to be final. Although the federal court says it will allow for a review of the board's decision, there is no provision allowing this senior judicial body to set aside the board's decisions even if they were legal errors or if the case was handled in an unreasonable way. What is the recourse that an employer would have? What is the recourse even that an employee or group of employees would have?

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Northeast to give me the opportunity to stand again and speak more on this matter.

I agree with the hon. member. One of the situations that I put in my speech is when we look at the situation of the store manager where the vote was 151 to 43, and they installed the union anyway, what is the recourse for the company here? What is the recourse for the employees who did not want it?

There are other vehicles that we can put in place. When there is a strike, where it becomes violent and tension starts to build is when replacement workers are brought in. There is no vehicle put in place where the employer and the unions can meet in trying to alleviate this tension, this violence. I suggest that we might even talk about having a vehicle put in place to bring down violence in Canada.

In every strike, where it starts is exactly right there. When replacement workers start to come in, we see broken windows, we see everything happening.

Coming back to that 151 to 43, I wonder if the government today would pass legislation if we had the same vote, 151 against and 43 for. Would it pass legislation anyway?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question of the member for Winnipeg. Of course he, living in an urban area, working in a neat little office, tucked away in some high-rise building, would not understand what some of the farmers have to go through and the losses which are incurred when a strike takes place. Being from the legal profession, that gentleman answers from that point of view.

When it comes to the average hardworking farmer or those in the industries related to farming, he is not really addressing their concerns. I do not think he really wants to, given the fact that the courtroom is where so much of this is decided. This legislation fits into that whole scheme of things.

I would like to ask the member to look at clause 87.7(1) which concerns services to grain vessels—

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member of the Reform Party has referred to my colleague from Winnipeg Centre as a lawyer and the record should show that my colleague is not a lawyer, he is a carpenter.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not mean to tarnish his image.

Clause 87.7(1) states:

During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this part, an employer in the longshoring industry, or other industry included in paragraph (a) of the definition “federal work, undertaking or business” in section 2, its employees and their bargaining agent shall continue to provide the services they normally provide to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels at licensed terminal and transfer elevators, and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a port.

In the member's interpretation of that clause I would ask him if he understands that to mean just dockside and in close vicinity to the grain handling on that end, or does it really apply to the whole myriad of unions involved in grain handling and rail transport from the prairies?

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am not from a grain area, I am from New Brunswick. But the member for Brandon—Souris is the only member of our party who is from western Canada, and believe me, I know about grain. I did not know anything before I came to this place, but I know now.

As far as the comment of the member is concerned, in my speech I supported the movement of grain in Canada.

I would also want to look at other industries. Hopefully it applies to all ports and all unions. That is my understanding. I do not know if it is his understanding. If grain is shipped through western Canada, through eastern Canada or wherever, farmers should be able to ship that grain through whatever means available, whether it be via trains or the ports. They are all federally regulated.

The comments of the hon. member are well taken. I certainly approve of that.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, since it is almost 5.30 p.m. and I have about a nine minute speech, I would like to ask that the House allow me to deliver my speech even if it goes over the time permitted by two or three minutes. Would there be consent for me to do that?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the niceness of my colleagues this evening.

I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-19, an act to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code.

An important conclusion of the Sims task force, whose work contributed greatly to this bill, was that the Canada Labour Code is generally accepted by labour and management groups as a viable framework which has facilitated collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector.

Accordingly, the bill does not seek to drastically overhaul the Canada Labour Code. Rather, it seeks to bring the code more into line with present realities.

This bill has two very important objectives, to update regulations governing the collective bargaining process so that it can function more effectively, and to improve the efficiency of the administration of the federal labour law. Both of these objectives are very timely.

The last time part I of the Canada Labour Code was subjected to comprehensive amendments was in the early 1970s. As my colleagues will appreciate, the federally regulated private sector workplace, to which the code applies, has been subject to a number of significant changes since then.

Privatization of government services has meant the transfer of some jobs from the public service to the private sector. They are now regulated by the code. Deregulation policies such as open skies and the elimination of the Crow rate have changed the conditions of competition in a number of industries regulated by the code.

This has had a direct impact on collective bargaining as unions and management have realized that a work stoppage can have a serious impact on market share and profitability.

Changes in trade policies, the adoption of new technologies and changing market conditions have also had significant effect on the federally regulated private sector.

In the face of these changes, unions have generally been on the defensive. Employers have pressed for industrial change and the very existence of collective bargaining has come under some scrutiny.

I reject the view that collective bargaining is no longer relevant. The freedom of workers to organize and bargain collectively is a cornerstone of our democratic, market based society. It is the means by which employees claim a proper reward for their efforts.

Canadian employers also benefit from a collective bargaining system. It helps to ensure stability, predictability and efficiency. For example, more than 95% of collective agreements in Canada are negotiated without a work stoppage. When problems do occur, the services of experienced and effective mediators and conciliators are available to assist in finding solutions.

Economic growth and social development depend as much on social relations and social processes as on technology and capital. In times of dramatic economic change, globalization and new trading blocs, it is important that we have in place an efficient, effective and responsive collective bargaining system.

I would like to discuss just a few of the measures contained in this legislation which will ensure that we have such a system in place as we face the challenges of the future.

This bill would significantly improve the administration of part I of the code by restructuring the Canada Labour Relations Board. The non-representational CLRB would be replaced with a representational Canada industrial relations board. The new board would be made up of a neutral chairperson and vice-chairpersons and equal numbers of board members representing labour and management groups. This would increase the confidence of those appearing before the board that their submissions are fully understood and properly reviewed.

Decisions made by the board, especially those involving the exercise of the board's discretion, would be more credible in the eyes of both labour and management.

The appointment of part time regional representatives of labour and management would significantly improve the cost effectiveness of the board, allow the board to benefit from the expertise of persons who are active on each side in the labour relations and foster links between the board and the labour relations communities.

Measures to reorganize the board contained in the bill would also make it more flexible, allowing it to respond much more quickly to both routine and emergency issues. Rather than a three member panel, for example, a single vice-chairperson would be able to resolve some cases. In some cases such as preliminary motions or requests for the extension of time limits this simply makes sense.

Access to the board would be enhanced by a repeal of the provision which requires the parties to obtain ministerial consent before filing an allegation of bad faith bargaining. This would be particularly significant in cases where an immediate hearing is needed to break a deadlock in negotiations.

This bill would give grievance arbitrators a number of important new procedural powers. These would make for a more flexible and efficient arbitration process and would be an important step in ensuring that grievance arbitration is reserved for the resolution of disputes that the parties cannot resolve on their own. These new powers are necessary because the arbitration process has become more and more complex.

I believe that the administration of the Canada Labour Code would also be enhanced by the provisions in the bill to strengthen the federal mediation and conciliation service. This service is important and has repeatedly proven extremely effective in helping management and labour to reach collective agreements. The economic impact of work stoppages prevented by the FMCS is incalculable.

A final provision of the bill which would improve the administration of the code is the requirement that the Minister of Labour meet occasionally with representatives of labour and employer groups and with labour relations experts. This will allow the minister to receive advice and feedback from the labour relations community, a good thing I would think.

One of the benefits of Canada's long history of free collective bargaining has been the development of an exceptionally talented labour relations community. It is appropriate that the code be amended so that the minister can take full advantage of the talents of our mediators, facilitators, arbitrators, fact finders, adjudicators and labour relations academics.

Time prevents me from discussing the many other provisions of this legislation which will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Canada Labour Code. Allow me to conclude by saying simply that this bill recognizes what labour and management groups have already said, that the code is an effective framework for collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector. The bill seeks to improve the efficiency and relevance of this framework and not to replace it. Faith in collective bargaining and in the labour relations community is central to this bill.

The provisions of the bill are based on extensive consultations with union leaders, representatives of employer groups and other interested parties across the country. Although these parties agree that part I of the Canada Labour Code has functioned well in the past to provide a stable environment for collective bargaining, they also agree that the time has come to amend the code, to make sure it continues to function well into the next century.

I am proud to support this legislation because I believe that it will help both employers and employees in the federal jurisdiction by providing them with the type of modern and relevant collective bargaining and labour-management system that they deserve.

This bill deserves all of our support.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.33 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

National Head Start Program

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000.

Madam Speaker, some years ago I was working in a jail as a physician. A couple of young women, 13 and 14 year old prostitutes and IV drug abusers were sitting across from me. They were incarcerated for the nth time in this institution. After examining them I said that I did not think they would live to see their 18th birthdays. They smiled and said quite softly that they probably did not see any need to live to 18 years of age anyway.

They were individuals who had endured many years of suffering. Their parents were prostitutes. They had lived on the streets since they were 10. They started hooking at the age of 12 and started mainlining drugs at the age of 13.

I was wrong. It was not that they did not live to see their 18th birthdays; they did not live to see their 15th birthdays. One young woman was found murdered at the end of a lonely road. I saw the other one while doing rounds on the pediatric ward. She had suffered a massive stroke after a cocaine overdose.

We see the children who are affected by the problems in our society. We look at those who are in custody in detention centres. While their history does not exonerate them for their actions, perhaps looking at their history will provide us with a clue as to how they got there.

The vast majority of those children in detention centres have suffered years and years of abuse in environments we would not wish on anybody. Years of neglect, sexual abuse, violence, malnourishment, complete lack of parental involvement in their upbringing. These are the histories of so many of those children. Our response historically has been the expensive management of these children while they are in jail.

Through Motion No. 261 I am trying to change our focus, to look not at the management of crime but to use some of our existing resources in the prevention of crime and to look at the root causes of crime. Parental neglect, child abuse, physical abuse, the witnessing of abuse, malnourishment, even the absence of proper parental involvement with the children, all of these things play a role in the development and damage of an individual's psyche.

Recent medical evidence has demonstrated quite conclusively, from things such as the positron emission tomographer, that the development of a normal psyche starts while the fetus is growing in the womb of the mother. At that time events can take place that can radically change the ability of that individual to function properly in society, such as the exposure to alcohol.

After the child is born the exposure to abuse, neglect and malnourishment all have a profound effect on the ability of the child to develop the underpinnings of a normal psyche which enables them to become a productive, integrated member of society who can have normal interpersonal relationships. Destroy the development of that individual at that critical time in the first eight years of life and we have a child that at best often develops personality disorders, conduct disorders or at worst, becomes incarcerated in jail.

We have to move our thinking and engage in a paradigm shift. If there is one thing I hope the government and its members, as members on our side and in fact in all political parties will do is to recognize the fact that prevention is more important than management. It is a lot cheaper and more effective for us to deal with these problems from time zero than to try to manage the situation when the child is incarcerated in an institution.

We have to change our thinking. If the government were to adopt this motion it would be the single greatest paradigm shift in social policy thinking in this country in the last 20 years. It would radically save a lot of money and dramatically change the lives, welfare and well-being of so many children, particularly some of the most underprivileged children in our society.

The motion is based on a few programs. I would like to give credit today to the member for Moncton who has been a leader in our country and in fact the world on developing the Moncton head start program. She has done an outstanding job.

I would also like to pay credit to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. He has done an outstanding job in our hometown of Victoria in trying as a lawyer and now as a parliamentarian to develop ways in which we can not only address individuals who are incarcerated now but also to engage in prevention.

The motion is based on three programs, one of which is the Moncton head start program which the member for Moncton was a leader in starting. This program recognizes that there needs to be parental involvement in the development of children. It started in 1974. It brings together high risk families in an environment where the parents are involved with the children in learning things that sometimes we take for granted, nutrition, proper parenting skills, the importance of play, the importance of having quality time with those children.

It is interesting to note that many of those parents did not themselves have good parenting skills because their parents did not have good parenting skills. The cycle continues and in order to break that cycle, sometimes active intervention is required in a co-operative and constructive manner.

The Moncton head start program demonstrated that very conclusively. It worked. It decreased crime rates. It decreased the incidents of those children running afoul of the law. They stayed in school longer. It also demonstrated a $6 saving for every dollar that was put into the program.

The Hawaii head start program has been in existence for quite some time. It has seen the importance of using volunteers, usually women who were very good parents and were trained to develop a bonding relationship with families at risk. They dealt with child abuse, violence in the home, drug problems, substance abuse problems. These were dealt with in a co-operative arrangement. The outcome was a 99% drop in child abuse.

The last program has actually been in existence the longest. It is the Perry pre-school program in Ypsilante, Michigan in existence since 1962. We have had over three decades of rigorous scientific analysis of this program to see what works and what does not work.

What this program demonstrated as many of the other ones did is that active early involvement to provide children with the basic necessities of life enabled the children to stay in school longer. There was a 50% drop in the crime rate and a 40% drop in teen pregnancies. There was less demand on social programs and the welfare rolls and the children got through school and had higher incomes at the end of the day.

This is a win-win situation. It also demonstrated a massive saving to the taxpayer.

Motion No. 261 asks the government to work with its provincial counterparts to implement the best from all these programs. There are good things and bad things. One can easily take a motion like this one and build it into some kind of Cadillac model where money will just be poured down some sinkhole and little will get to the people who really need it and little effect will happen.

If this motion is to become a reality, it requires a leader. It is true that most of the sentiments expressed within this motion are in the realm of the provinces. I will be the first to admit that. But for heaven's sake, someone has to take a leadership role and no one is. A hodge-podge of programs exists within our country, a little bit here and a little bit there. Some of them are good and some of them are not. There is overlap. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

The federal government can take a leadership role by bringing the first ministers together, locking them in a room like was done for the Dayton peace accord and telling them they will not get out until they sort out the problem. They will put on the table what they have and they will develop a comprehensive strategy that involves medical personnel, the schools and others.

In that way there is no overlap. There is a streamlining of the program and we can ensure that the basic needs of the children are met not in a Cadillac program but in a program that is cost effective.

The program has to be analysed very carefully to ensure that our outcomes warrant the investment and that money is not spent unwisely. There is a lot of room here for financial abuse and inefficiency. But there is also an enormous opportunity for us to take the bull by the horns, put our existing resources where they can make the best effect and deal with prevention to ensure that these children do not slip through the cracks.

In the throne speech the government mentioned a few interesting things that demonstrate in principle a support for the type of motion I am talking about and also the fact that it has put a series of important funding programs in existence.

The health transition fund is being organized by the government to help the provinces make innovative and co-operative arrangements with the federal government to deal with areas of primary care. I would argue that this is an issue of primary care that goes across health care, justice and social services.

Rather than having this conglomeration of programs where all this overlap exists, swallowed up in part by bureaucracy, let us make sure the dollars get to the kids and where they are needed most.

There is also the national children's agenda that exists. All these can be used against the backdrop of what this motion is asking for, and indeed the government has already implemented among aboriginal communities head start programs which I hope will be effective and which are long overdue. Not only the aboriginal community on reserves should have access to this but also aboriginal people outside reserves and non-aboriginal people.

One of the issues that can come into this program that I think would be a fallacy is to associate impoverishment with money for the people involved. What these programs have found is it is not money that makes the child, but a loving, caring, secure environment with caring, loving parents provides children with the best hope they can have in life.

Responsible, caring parents are the most important gift that a child can ever have. I and others can probably pay testimony to the parents who have given them so much and for which they can never repay them.

I hope the government takes the initiative, looks at this motion and implements it. I also put down in the motion that it be implemented before the year 2000, the reason being fear of the House proroguing sometime before that and this motion merely getting tossed under a carpet.

The national crime prevention council that the justice committee sensibly asked to be organized has come forth and been an advocate for many of the sentiments expressed within the national head start program. It has done tremendous work, and yet its good work lies on a table in its building, not for lack of desire or talent or hard work on its part, but because of inertia that pervades this place all the time. It is something that all of us as members labour under and try to find ways to overcome.

I argue that this is a motion that transcends party lines. It is a motion which I think members from across party lines will be in acceptance of, at least in principle. I hope members from across party lines will adopt it and provide the government with constructive suggestions to implement it, not for us but for all the children out there who come home to environments that are rife with abuse, neglect, malnourishment and hopelessness.

These children deserve hope if only for the humanitarian reason, but also for the cold, hard, pragmatic reason that what we do not deal with today we pay for tomorrow.

There is the increasing epidemic of crime. Just in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the death of Reena Virk was a profound tragedy. A young 14-year old girl was beaten up by a group of teenagers. This is not an isolated incident. Tragically, it occurs in other parts of the country, perhaps not to the same extent but it occurs.

We are not winning with our current proposal of detection, deterrence and incarceration. That needs to happen for certain people and we need to do that too. But we need to also focus our minds, focus our efforts into trying to prevent these tragedies from occurring, and it has to start from time zero.

It is estimated that half the people in jail suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. FAS is the leading cause of neurological damage in this country. People with FAS have an average IQ of 68. They have irreversible neurological damage that prevents them from engaging in appropriate interpersonal relationships with other individuals.

An unfortunate number of those individuals go on to commit crimes. This does not excuse them from their crimes but it provides a clue that this is a preventable problem. It is a tragedy when any of these children come to see you.

I will speak personally of my work in emergency departments. A child comes to you to be taken away from an abusive situation. You have a scared, emaciated child sitting in a corner. You take that child an do the appropriate exam before the child goes to a foster home. I have been fortunate enough to see a child like that again four months later. Now the child is a bubbly, chubby, smiling, gregarious, playful little one. I have to do an examination, as so many other physicians do, before that child goes back into the same abusive environment as before. That is wrong.

I have gone to judges, lawyers and social workers and what have they said? It is the system. I cannot reconcile, nor I am sure can others in this House, putting that child back in the same abusive environment as before. One year old children have no business going back in that type environment where we know they have no chance. We can only imagine the horrors those children endure for the rest of their young lives. Who knows where they will end up? They will end up in a place none of us would want to be.

I am not saying we can take children away forever but for heaven's sake let us be the advocate of the child first and foremost and the parents second. Let us ensure those children are put in environments with loving, caring secure parental involvement. That is the best asset any child can ever have.

This is the first hour of debate on this motion. There are two hours left. In advance I thank my colleagues for spending the time to do the investigation. I hope we can work together to make this motion a reality for the children of our country.