Debates of Feb. 19th, 1998

Points Of Order

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, during question period I inadvertently reversed what I intended to say. The section of Bill C-28 in question does not apply to companies incorporated in Canada and I am informed that Canadian Steamship Lines is incorporated in Canada.

My basic point is correct. The bill does not apply to the present Canada Steamship Lines and I apologize to the House for any inadvertent misstatement on my part during question period.

Business Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he would inform the House of the business for the rest of this week and for the week following.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the business statement to the House and to respond to the opposition House leader.

Today, Friday and up until 4.30 p.m. next Tuesday we will hopefully move through a substantial list of legislation. The bills are as follows: Bill S-4, the marine liability bill; Bill C-29, the Canada Labour Code amendments; Bill C-20, the Competition Act; Bill C-8, the Yukon gas bill; Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley bill; and Bill C-12, the RCMP superannuation bill.

I wish to designate Monday as an allotted day. The budget will take place on Tuesday at 4.30 p.m. The budget debate will begin on Wednesday, will proceed on Thursday and we will have the first vote at 5.30 p.m. next Thursday.

The House, pursuant to unanimous agreement made at an earlier time, will not sit on Friday, February 27.

Points Of Order

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to bring this to your attention but yesterday during question period, while our colleague was asking the Prime Minister a question concerning the Senate of Canada, the debate was continued by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and a member from our side of the House.

The yelling back and forth absolutely prevented me from hearing the question even with the aid of the interpreter. I had to go back to the blues and to Hansard to get the substance of the question. I do not think it is proper conduct in the House when a member cannot hear the question being posed.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, your point of order is well taken. Once again I appeal to all hon. members that when one member is posing a question or another member is answering a question we would like to be able to hear what both of them are saying. I would encourage you in the future that when one is posing a question or answering a question that we listen attentively unless we are directly involved in it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Canada Shipping Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When debate was interrupted before oral question period, there was, I think, seven minutes left to the period for questions and comments on the hon. member for Lévis' presentation.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask a question to the hon. member for Lévis, who made a brilliant speech on shipping, a few minutes before oral question period. My colleague very eloquently showed the laxness, carelessness, incompetence and negligence of the federal government regarding the management of the St. Lawrence River and all related activities, including port traffic.

The St. Lawrence River is the world's largest inland waterway and 85% of Quebec's population lives along its north and south shores. Yet, the federal government has always been negligent regarding the management of the St. Lawrence River. The hon. member for Lévis made a brilliant presentation on the environmental risks created by this laxness in the protection of the environment, including the dangers posed by oil tankers; as we know, the Quebec City bridge was recently hit twice by oil tankers.

Given all this, could the hon. member tell us how the St. Lawrence River and its neighbouring regions should be managed, in terms of economic and regional development, in the context of a sovereign Quebec?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say to the member for Trois-Rivières that there would finally be a government with full jurisdiction that would handle shipping like any normal country would. A normal country would act like the United States, the Scandinavian countries, and the other countries in the world with shipyards. In those countries, they build ships with the help of the government, not in conflict with it, and the passage of ships flying foreign flags with tax advantages and of old vessels that do not meet the standards is not allowed.

A normal country looks after normal things, such as its future in shipping and its economic development, and does not wait for the Senate to wake it up when it comes to shipping issues, the way the Liberal Party has. It is unbelievable. They do not come any slower.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

In accordance with the request of the chief government whip, this vote stands deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders on Monday next.

Canada Labour Code

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in the House and lead off the debate on a bill that I believe is as important as any bill we will introduce in this session. It is for the labour and management stakeholders who are affected by its provisions.

Bill C-19 proposes major changes to part I of the Canada Labour Code, the legislation that provides the framework for collective bargaining for the federal private sector. Members who sat in the last session of Parliament will recognize much that is in this bill. It is very similar to former Bill C-66 which was passed by the House last April. That similarity is not without good reason.

For those who were not in the Chamber during the last session a bit of background might be useful. As hon. members might know, Canada and each of the provinces pass and administer their own labour laws. Jurisdiction is mainly dependent on the nature of the work being performed. The Canada Labour Code applies to industries that are in many cases of national significance.

These industries often cross provincial and international boundaries. Approximately 700,000 workers and their employers in interprovincial and international transportation, airports and airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, banking, shipping, longshoring and grain handling come under federal jurisdiction. The code also applies to some crown corporations, as to private sector operations in the territories.

Although federal jurisdiction is relatively small in terms of numbers it is very important because of the key sectors it covers across the nation.

Amending this legislation which provides a process and procedures to the collective bargaining system is no small matter. Canada has had such labour legislation on its books for most of this century. It has changed over time of course to meet new demands and new circumstances, but it has served us remarkably well, so well in fact that the overwhelming majority of collective agreements in the federal jurisdiction are settled without the ultimate recourse of strike or lockout.

However, part I of the Canada Labour Code has not been substantially revised in over 20 years. In a world of incredibly rapid change on the technology, trade and economic fronts it is beginning to show its age.

In July 1995 the government established a task force of eminent labour relations experts chaired by Edmonton labour lawyer Andrew Sims to conduct an independent review of the legislation. The list of those making oral and written submissions reads like a who's who of Canada's respected union and management organizations.

Close to 50 groups and individuals made oral presentations and almost 90 made written submissions. In short, almost all the major players who would be affected by changes to part I placed before the task force their perspective of where changes were needed.

As part of the process, the task force made use of a key working group known as the labour-management consensus group. On the labour side were representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions and the Canadian Federation of Labour. On the employer side were the Federally Regulated Employers in Transportation and Communications, otherwise known as FETCO, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Bankers Association. A senior official from the labour program acted as a facilitator for the consensus group.

The group managed to reach agreement on a number of key issues. Many of the group's recommendations became the recommendations of the task force, which in turn have found their way into this legislation.

The task force report was called quite appropriately “Seeking a Balance”. It was released in February 1996. The release was followed up with a series of cross-country meetings to hear the views of all the interested parties on the task force recommendations. The result was Bill C-66 introduced on November 4, 1996 and passed by this House in April. The bill was awaiting third reading in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved.

It is important to understand the history of this bill. It is substantially the same as its predecessor. Everything that made that bill balanced and fair, and the end product of extensive consultation with the very people it will affect, applies to this bill. To make sure that we have crossed all our t' s and dotted all our i' s, since becoming Minister of Labour last June, I spent the summer and much of the fall consulting these very same parties, including such major players as FETCO, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the CSN.

As a result of these discussions and listening to the parties, we have made some drafting changes which I will get to. I want to repeat that the principles and the merits of this bill remain the same. The proposed amendments are in their total endorsed by the main stakeholders. They are needed to bring our collective bargaining process in line with the demands and the realities of the 21st century. The details are best left for our committee hearings. Let me just review its broad strokes and point to where we have made some changes.

The old Canada Labour Relations Board will be replaced with one that is more representative of its clients. The new board will be called the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Like its predecessor, it will be charged with the orderly management of the collective bargaining process. It will have a neutral chair and vice-chairs, and this is the critical part, it will have equal employer and employee representation.

The new board will also have additional powers and responsibilities resulting in a more effective vehicle for addressing labour disputes with greater flexibility to deal quickly with routine matters.

We are introducing changes to representation and successor rights. One of the more important amendments in this group for example provides that when an undertaking moves from provincial to federal jurisdiction either through a sale or a change of activities, both the bargaining rights and the collective agreement will be carried over. In these fast moving times when ownerships and activities can change rapidly, this protection will prevent needless disruption in labour-management relations.

On the representation side, one of the more contentious amendments for Bill C-66 dealt with providing names and addresses of off site workers to trade union representatives. The workers in question are often home workers or those who, for whatever reason, do not perform their duties at a work site. These employees by virtue of being off site can often be excluded from participating in decisions about collective bargaining.

The concerns of the employer about releasing names and addresses centred around the issue of privacy. Let me assure members that I have listened to these concerns. I consulted with the stakeholders on both sides this past summer and modified this section.

The board will still have the discretion to give an authorized representative of a trade union a list of names and addresses of off site workers. However the board will now have clear authority to act as a transmitter of information itself if it concludes that privacy cannot otherwise be assured.

Furthermore, a statutory prohibition against the use of information provided under this section for other purposes has been added.

Finally, the board may order information to be transmitted to off site employees over the employer's electronic mail system. The employer retains control of operating the system.

I believe we have now succeeded in protecting the privacy rights of off site workers while offering them adequate opportunity of access to union information and decision making.

The bill includes a number of changes to the bargaining cycle designed to speed up the system, improve flexibility and encourage earlier settlement of disputes. A primary objective here is to reduce delays in the collective bargaining process. These amendments cover such matters as extending the period of serving notice to bargain from three months to four months, establishing a streamlined, single stage conciliation process, and the requirement for a secret ballot on strike and lockout votes.

We have also sought to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties during legal strikes and lockouts. The most controversial area was the use of replacement workers. As was the case in the previous bill, there will be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout. However their use for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity would be an unfair labour practice.

Some claimed that the wording did not reflect the intent of the task force recommendation, a recommendation widely accepted by both labour and management as part of a package of recommendations. Others found the wording confusing, alleging that nobody knew what it meant and that the mere presence of a replacement worker would become unlawful.

While concerns about the clarity of the replacement worker provision in Bill C-66 were debatable, I have decided to act. Again, after consultation with the stakeholders this summer, the provision has been reworded to more accurately reflect the narrative used in the Sims task force majority recommendations.

The provision now explicitly points out that the use of replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a union's ability to represent its workers rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives will be an unfair labour practice. Where the board determines a violation has occurred, it can order the employer to stop using replacements for the duration of the dispute.

With these changes I believe we have adopted a reasonable middle of the road approach that can be accepted as a workable compromise by both labour and management.

It continues to be the policy of this government that industrial disputes are better settled by the players themselves. Curtailment of rights should only be a last resort and used under certain conditions such as the threat to public safety and health.

The proposed amendments will therefore require labour and management to maintain services necessary to prevent serious and immediate danger to public health or safety during a work stoppage. If they cannot come up with a workable solution for providing such protection, I as Minister of Labour could use my discretion to ask the board to make necessary determinations and directions to the parties to make sure that public health and safety are protected.

We have added particular provisions pertaining to disputes related to grain handling. Grain handlers and their employers will retain the right to strike or lockout. However in the event of a work stoppage involving other parties in port related activities, including longshoring, services to grain vessels being loaded at licensed terminals or transfer elevators must be maintained.

This will address the vast majority of the disruptions to grain exports at Canadian ports, most of which have not involved grain handling disputes directly. In fact since 1972, of the 12 work stoppages governed by the code at the west coast ports which have greatly curtailed grain exports, only three directly involved grain handlers.

The government's commitment to ensure this amendment works remains. The effectiveness of the grain provisions will be reviewed again in 1999 after the next round of west coast longshore bargaining. If this step is not strong enough to protect the vital flow of grain exports from our ports, then stronger measures will have to be considered.

Finally I would like to make a quick mention of the repeal of part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. The act deals with the collection and reporting of statistical information on labour unions.

Under part II of the act, Statistics Canada collects information on nearly every major labour union in Canada. However the agency has found a more effective way of collecting information. The information gathered under the proposed system could result in a more accurate picture of the role of unions in the Canadian labour market.

Statistics Canada proposes to obtain its information directly from Canadian workers. This amendment will save Canadian taxpayers $300,000 a year and the updated information will be more useful. These are the principal amendments proposed for part I of the Canada Labour Code.

I hope the House will indulge me when I suggest a cautious approach to making changes to this bill. I have outlined its history. The amendments proposed are the end result of many hours of consultation. It is not time to reinvent the wheel. It is not time to cherry pick one item or another to meet the needs of one constituency over another. It is not time to go back to the beginning.

We have the task force report. The bill reflects its work, which in turn reflects the expert input from the very stakeholders it will affect.

Passage of the bill will result in an industrial relations climate where labour and management will be able to resolve their differences in a more efficient and more positive environment. Better labour relations are good for everyone: for the employer, the employee and the people of Canada.

In short, this is balanced legislation. It is fair. It is up to date. It demonstrates that we have listened to Canadians. In large measure it reflects consensus.

There is only one thing left to do. Put it in law. It is time to get the job done.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In the last parliament the Minister of Labour attempted to revamp part I of the Canada Labour Code. He failed in that task when his Liberal colleagues in the other place refused to give it expeditious passage.

With the summer to address the flaws in Bill C-66, it appeared that the new and improved legislation would be a priority. It was the first item on the order paper for this, the 36th Parliament, but it took the minister another six weeks to introduce it and another seven weeks to convince his House leader to schedule it for second reading.

Reformers hoped that the delay would mean a fair and balanced bill would be forthcoming. The minister could have waited longer because the minor adjustments barely make any difference.

Anyone who only had access to the minister's press release would have been fooled into thinking that real improvements were made to the legislation. Closer scrutiny reveals, however, that the few technical changes will not make much difference to this botched attempt to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code.

The Reform Party proposed a series of amendments to Bill C-66 that would have gone a long way toward improving industrial relations in the country. Had the government not used its majority to squash our proposals, Bill C-66 would have sailed through the House unimpeded and would have easily passed the scrutiny of the other place. Today it would be law and we could turn our attention to cutting the $600 billion national debt and giving Canadians a much deserved tax break.

Fair and balanced labour laws play an integral part in Canada's ability to attract and hold business. Uncertainty fuelled by the threat of work disruptions can scare away potential investors and cause existing industries to question whether they would be better off elsewhere. As a nation where the unemployment rate for the last four years has hovered around 9% we must take steps to encourage job creation and not scare it away.

So far the government with its dependence on high payroll taxes is doing an exemplary job of discouraging job creation. It is widely acknowledged that high taxes kill jobs. Even the finance minister of the Liberal government agrees with that.

We know government infrastructure programs and other make work projects do not create permanent jobs. Labour legislation and regulations made on a case by case basis will not create jobs either. Stable labour relations will promote investment, reinvestment and those sought after jobs.

It is in the interest of all Canadians to have reliable access to essential services, to keep employment within our borders, and to establish and maintain a reputation as a worldwide reliable exporter of goods.

This reputation is jeopardized whenever we have a work stoppage in one of our key sectors. Take the recent postal impasse for instance. Weeks of uncertainty over whether or not there would be mail delivery created havoc. Not only did it cost Canada Post millions of dollars. It dealt a severe blow to small businesses and charities that depend on the pre-Christmas period to ensure their viability.

If the Canada Labour Code contained a permanent dispute settlement mechanism, workers and management would be better off. Customers and business would be assured of a reliable mail service. Yet the government passed up another opportunity to stabilize industrial relations by not including a permanent dispute settlement mechanism in Bill C-19.

The Reform Party has a long term solution, but so far the government has refused to implement it. Final offer selection arbitration is a tool to effectively and permanently control labour issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. It is fair because it does not favour one side over the other.

Here is how it works. If and only if the union and the employer cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the union and the employer would provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as arbitrator.

The union and the employer would be required to submit to the arbitrator a list of the matters agreed upon and a list of the matters still under dispute. For disputed issues each party would be required to submit a final offer for settlement.

The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer: all of one position or all of the other position. The arbitrator's decision would be binding on both parties.

We are saying that rather than go to back to work legislation every time there is a work stoppage in one of these key areas, this tool should be there for management and the union to use. I submit that when this tool is used to its ultimate it is not used at all because it encourages both parties to bargain earnestly and come to a settlement.

As the minister said earlier, the best agreement you can have is one that is agreed to by both parties. I believe the final offer selection arbitration would go a long way to achieving that very goal.

In 1994 one of the first actions of the newly elected Liberal government was to legislate an end to work disruption at the west coast port, back to work legislation. In those days the prime minister did not deem it necessary to have a separate labour minister, so the human resources minister of the day included final offer selection arbitration as a mechanism to settle the dispute between the longshoremen and the port of Vancouver.

Which was it? Was it back to work legislation or was it final offer selection arbitration? It was both. Legislating the parties back to work gets the wheels moving again, but it does not do anything to resolve the issues that are still in question in the contract. They have to bring in final offer selection to resolve that. There is the precedent for the very thing we have been asking for.

In the wake of the ongoing tensions created by the need for yet another legislated settlement, the government set up an inquiry commission into labour relations at west coast ports. The 200 page report recommended final offer selection arbitration as a way to provide protection to the economy and to the interests of the public and third parties.

It is all very nice for the minister to say that he will be very stern in cases where public safety is at stake, but I think he has an obligation to protect the Canadian economy too. We are all very interested to see our employment figures improve and to see the economy improve. As a minister of the crown he should take very seriously these threats to our national economy.

Obviously this was just another inquiry commission with the main purpose of taking the heat off the government and letting it appear as if it is doing something, because the west coast ports inquiry recommended that final offer selection arbitration be included in labour legislation.

Last week the House debated my private member's bill, Bill C-233, which proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration as a process to prevent costly strikes and lockouts at west coast ports. My bill was based on the very recommendations I just spoke of from that inquiry.

We should not be too surprised at the government's reluctance to implement a permanent solution to crippling strikes and lockouts. There is a recurring and notable reticence by the government to give up control of anything. For that very reason government members think they will be seen as heroes by the voters for legislating an end to work stoppages. They could be real heroes by taking action to prevent an economically crippling work stoppage in the first place.

A costly interruption of government business is not required. While there is need for regulation by various levels of government, it is neither practical nor prudent to implement emergency measures whenever labour and management are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement.

Resolving the differences of these two groups can be achieved without interrupting the regular flow of government proceedings. A permanent and fair resolution process must be put in place, removed from the whims of government. We need permanent legislation that would provide both sides with a predictable rule and timetable by which to negotiate.

The labour-management problems at west coast ports have been studied over and over. Yet this legislation would not solve any of the problems at the ports. In fact it will actually complicate and hinder the bargaining process.

At the time of Confederation grain elevators were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Since then the government realized what western farmers have always known, that any dispute involving grain handling threatens the Canadian economy and our reputation as a reliable exporter.

The Liberals, I suppose not wanting to be seen as protecting the grain industry from all too frequent work disruptions, included a provision in the legislation guaranteeing the tie-up, the let go and loading of grain vessels, and the movement of those vessels in and out of port in the event of a work stoppage.

On the surface this looks like a positive measure for the grain industry, but like so many of the measures we have seen the government initiate, once we scratch the surface the cracks appear. Since one of the worst fears of grain exporters is that a labour disruption might stop a shipment from reaching the customer, this is a small step forward. It is a baby step. Contrary to the information circulated by some groups, it does not “prohibit third parties from shutting down the flow of grain in the event of a dispute”.

The government's meagre concession to grain producers falls far short of ensuring the product reaches market and farmers are not left in the lurch. The disruption in 1995 that brought rail traffic to a halt is still fresh in the minds of western Canadians.

The two year settlement imposed by the back to work legislation expired at the end of last December and some unions have yet to sign a new contract. Failure to reach an agreement could mean a strike or lockout this spring and grain shipments, regardless of the status of the legislation, could come to a standstill.

We are saying that it is fine to load the grain that gets to the port, but if a strike takes place between here and the port there will not be any grain at the port to load.

Grain represents 30% of the business of the port of Vancouver. What about the other 70%?

The negative impact of any port dispute is not limited to grain, nor is its economic impact greater than the implications of the port shutdown on the exporters and importers of other commodities, including forest products, coal, sulphur and potash, to name a few.

The inclusion of provisions such as found in section 87.7, that create an uneven playing field among various sectors of the economy, is unnecessary and not helpful in making Canada an attractive place to visit.

When representatives of groups such as the B.C. Maritime Employers Association, which represents 77 wharf and terminal operators and stevedoring firms in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, appeared as witnesses before the standing committee on human resources development during the Bill C-66 debate, they told us that the grain provision in this bill could actually worsen the already rocky history of labour disputes at the ports.

The inclusion of final offer selection arbitration in the Canada Labour Code would level the playing field and ensure grain and all other exports are not held hostage.

Another of the technical changes found in Bill C-19 relates to the government's feeble attempts to appease those opposed to the ban on the use of replacement workers. The son of Bill C-66 attempts to clarify the wording, but the end result is still a de facto ban on the use of replacement workers.

The minister says in his statement that no general prohibition of the use of replacement workers is in this bill, but I submit there is a de facto ban.

This provision still gives too much power to the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, which will be hard pressed to deny any union leader's contention that their rights have been violated.

The other issue that was to be clarified over the summer was clause 50, which amends section 109.1 of the Code dealing with union's access to off site workers.

The changing nature of today's work environment has seen an increasingly large number of people working away from the traditional workplace. The government decided to help fledgling union membership by permitting unions to acquire the names and addresses of potential new members. When the privacy commissioner appeared before the committee of the other place studying Bill C-66, he said: “What is missing, as we see it, in clause 50 is the element of consent”. That is how we see it, too.

The minister tinkered with clause 50, but the element of consent is still missing. I moved an amendment to Bill C-66 requiring employee consent before the release of any personal information, but of course it was defeated. The inclusion of consent in this bill is crucial.

Once again, the government passed off to the CIRB the authority to make decisions on a case by basis instead of showing real leadership by protecting the rights of Canadian workers. Another major flaw remaining in this legislation is the provision giving the CIRB the authority to certify a union even though a majority of the employees are opposed. How can that be?

Let me refer you to the most publicized case of how this type of provision works against employee wishes. That can be found at the Wal-Mart in Windsor, Ontario. The Ontario Labour Relations Board agreed to certify the union, even though the employees at the Windsor store voted 151 to 43 against it last May.

Canadians should have the right to join a union if the majority of their fellow employees agree. If they are opposed, membership should not be forced on them. The workers should be empowered to make the decision, not the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

A mandatory secret ballot is the only fair way to determine if the employees want union representation.

This all powerful board will emerge from the ashes, or perhaps the crumbs, of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The Canada Labour Relations Board has been in disarray for years and a steady succession of cabinet ministers stood idly by while it struggled. In 1995 a power struggle between the chairman and the vice-chairs over who should assign and schedule cases was played out in the media.

One has to question the effectiveness of such an important quasi-judicial decision making body that was unable to resolve its own problems. It took a mediator and about $203,000 worth of public funds to settle this internal dispute. At least Bill C-19 reduces the term of employment for the chair and the vice-chairs to five years from the current 10 years. As a Reform Party labour critic I proposed this change to the Sims commission two years ago.

In light of the difficulty the government encountered in its attempt to fire the chairman of the CLRB, Bill C-19 should spell out not only the terms and conditions of employment for the board executive and members, but it should clarify exactly what it means “to hold office during good behaviour”. Maybe some expense account guidelines would not be going awry either.

The need for specific policy and enforceable guidelines is essential if the board is ever to regain its credibility. It is absolutely incomprehensible that no one stepped in when the chairman claimed $700 Paris lunches or charged for travel and meals for other international jaunts. These were deemed okay because of the chairman's position as head of the international board. Where was the benefit in this to the Canadian taxpayers? Surely there should be some stipulation for this kind of activity.

Let us look at how the board operated. In 1994 the chairman apparently informed the members that the CRLB “must address certain financial practices which do not comply with Treasury Board directives or with the spirit of the government's philosophy concerning the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars”. The auditor general found this advice was not adhered to or implemented. The chairman did not heed his own directive so why should he expect anyone else at the CLRB to do it?

Meanwhile the Treasury Board, the PMO, the privy council office and a series of labour ministers took no notice. They did nothing, even when he charged $53,000 for expenses to attend 28 meetings of the National Academy of Arbitrators.

In 1996 the task force review of the CLRB's performance concluded that decisions were not being made in a timely manner. The auditor general stated: “The problems of the CLRB are due to poor management practice, inadequate paper oriented communications, poor leadership from senior members of the board and a general lack of professionability and accountability which have created a climate which is at times venomous, harassing, stressful and which undoubtedly is eroding morale, the quality and efficiency of the board's work and the board's internal and external credibility and integrity”.

That is about as strong a directive as I have ever seen an auditor general use. The things he said leave out nothing. Board members cannot get along, the board cannot function, it does not function in a timely manner, it is not conducting its business, it is in fighting, morale is being eroded and it is stressful and venomous. That is a pretty condemning statement. I applaud the auditor general's courage in making it.

I attempted to have the chairman called as a witness before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I sent a formal request to the committee clerk last summer. It would have provided MPs with the opportunity to question the chairman. It also would have given Mr. Weatherill the opportunity he wanted to publicly defend himself. When a meeting was eventually scheduled for some reason it was cancelled. That reason is still unknown to me.

The auditor general's report must be seen as confirmation that things were definitely awry at the Canadian Labour Relations Board.

At this point we have to ask how well Canadian labour and business has been served by this body.

The government has to answer for the longstanding mismanagement at the CLRB. The minister must take steps to ensure that this never happens again. The board's decisions are for all intents and purposes final. While the Federal Court Act allows for a review of the board's decisions, there is no provision allowing this senior judicial body to set aside board decisions if there were legal errors or if the case was handled in an unreasonable way.

This is the situation facing one interprovincial transportation company where both the employer and the employees are dissatisfied with the board's certification ruling. The current Canada Labour Code does not provide them any recourse and Bill C-19 does nothing to help their plight either.

We cannot support Bill C-19 in its present form for the reasons I have outlined. We will be proposing a series of amendments which will go a long way toward achieving fair and balanced labour laws.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, finance; the hon. member for Mississauga West, youth employment.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today for the first time as the Bloc Quebecois labour critic. I am pleased to do so in connection with Bill C-19, which amends the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.

In summary, this bill implements reforms to the industrial relations provisions of part I of the Canada Labour Code, to provide a framework for collective bargaining that enhances the ability of labour and management to better frame their own agreements and allows workplace disputes to be resolved in a timely and cost effective manner.

The key components are as follows: first, the creation of a representational board, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with appropriate powers to allow for the timely and cost effective administration of the system. Second, streamlining of the conciliation process. Third, clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties during a work stoppage, including requirements for strike and lockout votes and advance strike and lockout notices. Fourth, a requirement for parties involved in a work stoppage to continue services necessary to protect public health and safety. Fifth, a requirement for the maintenance of services affecting grain shipments in the event of legal work stoppages by any third parties in the ports. Sixth, making the undermining of a trade union's representational capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair legal practice. Seventh, improving access to collective bargaining for off-site workers.

The text also repeals the provisions of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act respecting trade unions.

This is a significant bill, if only because it affects 700,000 workers across Canada, 115,000 of them in Quebec. Its areas of application are enormous: for example, banks, interprovincial and international transportation, airports and air lines, broadcasting and telecommunications, port and shipping operations, grain handling. Many crown corporations are affected by the Canada Labour Code.

This bill addresses part I of the Canada Labour Code, which is on labour relations, while part II deals with occupational health and safety, and part III with labour standards, or in other words the working conditions in businesses governed by the federal government.

The bill before us was preceded by a vast consultation of stakeholders, which began in June 1995 and which led to the Sims report, named for the chair, which was released in February 1996, nearly two years ago.

Last spring, on the eve of the election, we were considering Bill C-66, which unfortunately did not come to fruition. Today we are looking at the newly arrived bill bearing number C-19.

We will oppose this bill, because, despite vast consultations, no doubt carried out in good faith, the reform is incomplete. The Liberal government lacked the political courage to do what it had to in a number of regards. We have criticisms of various aspects of this bill we are not happy with, starting with the government's change in the name from the Canada Labour Relations Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

It claims to represent the parties. However the clause relating to this, clause 10(2) reads as follows:

—the members of the Board other than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation by the Minister with the organizations representative of employees or employers that the Minister considers appropriate to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Governor in Council at any time for cause.

Therefore the organizations the minister considers appropriate will be consulted, without recourse necessarily—the approach suggested by the parties—to the lists of people suggested by the parties, as employers and employees, for the minister to choose from. That was not the approach chosen by the minister, because it will not automatically be the people considered representative of these associations who will represent them on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. So there is something wrong from the start, which makes this bill rather insensitive, given its pretensions.

There is also the case of the RCMP and its employees. For many years the employees have asked their employer, the federal government, for real power to negotiate their working conditions. A common occurrence in the West. There is nothing outlandish in requesting negotiations that could be successful. The people involved carry out very specific duties and represent the state in a unique capacity as peace officers, but do not have the right to strike. Everything is settled in advance, but they wanted the right to go to arbitration if both sides cannot come to an agreement. The government refused, letting RCMP managers be judge and jury, as has been the case for years, causing a great deal of frustration for RCMP employees.

It is very disappointing that, despite the golden opportunity provided by this broad consultation it was conducting, the government turned a deaf ear to the RCMP employees' representations, which seem legitimate to us.

The same can be said of public service employees, at least those represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the Public Service Alliance, who have been asking for over ten years to be subject to the Canada Labour Code, and not just to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This is a situation similar to that of the RCMP. It is a very unfair and unpleasant situation in that the government is both the legislating government and the employer making regulations.

There is no real collective bargaining taking place, it is prohibited, and working conditions are set by the employer. Quite legitimately, federal public service employees want to come under the Canada Labour Code, so that the legislator will no longer be judge and jury but rather have to participate in the normal bargaining process as we know it in the western world.

Compared to the current situation, whether one comes under the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Labour Relations Act makes a world of difference. One has to be a unionized employee, as I was in the Quebec public service, to realize how important things like working conditions are. Job security too is very important. Contrary to popular belief, there is no true job security in the federal public service. Since the employer also makes the laws, it is biased, and it can, even for political motives, lay people off.

For those who may not know it, there is no job security in the federal public service, while significant progress has been made in the private sector. There is currently no protection in the federal public service against the technological changes that may take place, at the expense of workers who are at the mercy of the decisions made by management. These workers have absolutely no say in the restructuring process that may take place following such changes.

We know how significant, traumatizing and threatening these changes can be for someone who earns a living working for the government. Public servants should be allowed to make suggestions to make it easier to cope with technological changes, so that these changes will cause a minimum of hardships to individuals, and so that the new technologies will be at the service of these human beings, and not the reverse.

We cannot understand the spirit that prevails among managers in the public service. We cannot understand why these people are not more open to such an approach. After all, private businesses, which are the most effective ones, adjusted to technological changes and they made sure their employees accepted these changes, so that the transition would be as smooth as possible.

Public service managers would be a little more modern in their approach if they were receptive to this type of ideas.

The fact that public servants are not governed by the Canada Labour Code but, rather, by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, has a direct impact on their career, which is very important when one works for this type of employer. It is a huge structure with many levels. Employees have no say in the job classification or description process.

If the government agreed to have its employees governed by the Canada Labour Code, these public servants would be able to discuss with their employer—more or less on an equal footing—the very important issues of job classification and description.

Similarly, the appointment, promotion and transfer processes are all very important issues during one's career. They are all part of what the public service refers to as a career plan, an individual's entire professional life, which is not recognized because the government plays the role of both judge and jury.

It is a simple matter of asking the government to give its employees the right to negotiate their working conditions, like millions of other workers in Canada, thereby reducing bargaining restraints by allowing new rights that could be called: the right to strike, such as they have in Quebec's public service, the right to arbitration and the right to grieve, which do not exist right now, the employer being both judge and jury, as we keep saying.

Where the problem arises, where the government has turned a deaf ear to these entirely legitimate claims by the employer, is on the issue of replacement workers. The government does not deserve our support on this, because it has shown a lack of political courage, given the strength of the arguments made.

I will read paragraph 42(2.1) in order to illustrate my point:

42.(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.

You will have noted, as did my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, last spring, the convoluted wording, behind which the meaning and particularly the government's will are difficult to find. The only obvious thing is this government's typical failure to take a stand, except where the Constitution is concerned.

Far from making it illegal to hire scabs, to call them what they are, or replacement workers, this practice legalizes, legitimizes, supports the hiring by an employer of such workers. When the bill says that no employer shall undermine a trade union's representational capacity, as in the passage I read earlier, what it is really setting out to do is to undermine the union's strike force with respect to the employer, who is authorized by law to hire replacement workers, or scabs.

It would have been so easy to follow Quebec's example. Here, as in many other areas, Quebec is an example of civilization and harmony. In 1977, René Lévesque, with the then Labour Minister Pierre-Marc Johnson, had the strong support of his cabinet, although there was no consensus among Quebeckers, any more than there is consensus among members of the Canadian public today. Management is obviously not keen on the idea. It was not keen in Quebec, it is not keen in Canada, it is certainly not keen in the United States, and it is probably not keen in France either. In all western countries, there is no doubt that it goes very much against an employer's grain to be prohibited from engaging replacement workers to maintain production when employees are on strike.

It is a question of balance of power, however. This was what the Government of Quebec realized in 1977, even though there was no consensus. But fortunately the legislation was passed in 1977. The Quebec Liberal Party took office in 1985, and never dared to tamper with Quebec's antiscab legislation, although Mr. Scowen, a cabinet member, was mandated by the government to study the issue and recommended that it be amended. In its wisdom, the Bourassa government decided not to follow his advice.

There was even a ruling by the supreme court in favour of the Conseil du patronat. Members have heard of the wonderful supreme court. Once again, in 1991, it overturned the law and authorized the Conseil du patronat to pursue its case to overturn the antiscab legislation. The Conseil du Patronat also had the wisdom, heaven only knows why, not to take advantage of the opening being handed to it by the Supreme Court to take its case further. That is very significant.

Why? Because further examination revealed that, since the introduction of antiscab legislation, strikes were 35% shorter and violence non-existent on picket lines. These are signs of civilization. These are signs of social progress that Canada, our neighbour, should be emulating. No, it preferred to turn a deaf ear to the very legitimate claims of unions in this regard.

The solution would simply have been to declare the hiring of replacement workers or scabs an unfair practice by the employer, just as other practices have been declared unfair under the Canada Labour Code. The definition of unfair practice is an important one. It is an allegation that an employer, a union or an individual has taken part in an activity prohibited under the Canada Labour Code.

Here are some examples of unfair practices: changing the conditions of employment after notification of an application for certification; negotiating in bad faith, if it can be demonstrated—this is an unfair practice recognized in the Canada Labour Code; interfering in the business of the union is an unfair practice on the part of the employer; failing to fulfil its duty of fair representation is an unfair practice on the part of the union; failing to provide members with financial statements is also an unfair practice under the Canada Labour Code and is subject to a penalty.

Why not simply recognize that the hiring of scabs is an unfair practice under the Canada Labour Code? This is the bill's major flaw.

The hiring of replacement workers should be recognized as an unfair practice. The government cannot plead ignorance, because our research is based on the opinions and representations made by labour unions during the consultations.

Let me read two paragraphs in the brief submitted by the CSN at the hearings:

The lack of antiscab provisions is a fundamental flaw that has the effect of prolonging labour disputes and creating an imbalance that prevents free collective bargaining.

The hiring of scabs during a labour dispute is a source of frustration and violence. The presence of scabs being escorted by private security agencies, when it is not the police paid for with our taxes, is upsetting. It is difficult for employees who have made the reputation of a business or of an institution to see scabs crossing the picket lines every day.

I also want to read the very moving testimony given at these hearings by Claude Tremblay, the president of the Ogilvie workers union. This strike in Quebec was a very long one because the employer hired scabs. I will read long excerpts from the brief submitted at the time by Mr. Tremblay:

The 110 workers I represent were more or less forced out on strike on June 6, 1994 after close to two years of unproductive negotiations with our new employer, the American giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). After an attempt to force us to accept its collective agreement, ADM took advantage of a loophole in the Canada Labour Code to impose it on us effective December 10, 1993. In fact, legal precedents applying to the Canada Labour Relations Board allow an employer to unilaterally modify working conditions, once the right to strike or lockout is acquired, even though our previous collective agreement called for it to be in effect until renewed. Unfortunately, these precedents provide—and the Canada Labour Code has nothing to say on the matter—that such clauses are illegal and do not prevent the employer from taking advantage of the legal vacuum.

Since this employer-imposed agreement did away with our seniority rights and the employer was threatening lay-offs that were not in order of seniority, we were forced to walk out in order to prevent the employer from doing this and also to force it to maintain what we had acquired over more than 30 years.

Powerful employers like ADM, and most of the employers subject to the Canada Labour Code, have plenty of power already without being given the additional power to impose their working conditions as soon as they are entitled to lock out workers.

As a union, we believe that collective agreements should be maintained by law, at least until the right to strike is exercised. As well, the act ought to permit inclusion in a collective agreement of a clause allowing the working conditions it contains to remain in effect until renewal.

The act not only authorizes the use of strikebreakers, it encourages it.

I will continue reading Mr. Tremblay's letter.

After nearly 16 months of striking we managed to wring an ordinary collective agreement—ordinary within the context of Quebec—out of ADM. However, it was extraordinary compared to the American pattern of agreement ADM had forced on its employees in over 138 collective agreements throughout its empire.

The paragraph that follows is very significant. There is no explanation for the government's insensitivity to these representations.

Day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, we endured subtle, underhanded and persistent violence. The violence of watching scabs stealing our rights, trucks entering and leaving full of wheat or flour, the CUM police arresting colleagues for nothing, security guards hired by ADM spying on us with cameras on public roads and up to our doorsteps, as if we were some sort of scum.

The worst part was discovering on our return to work that the scabs had botched our production so badly as to threaten the quality of Five Roses flour. This reputation for quality is surely the best guarantee of our jobs. The law, however, encourages short-sighted employers to threaten the survival of a business by allowing them to use unskilled workers, only to give them a psychological advantage against us in negotiations.

How was this useful to ADM if, in its back to work agreement, the company not only agreed to fire these scabs but also promised not to rehire them for the duration of the collective agreement?

Not only does the Canada Labour Code not prohibit the hiring of scabs, but the employment office in Verdun was even called upon to recruit them. Two months after the end of a 15 month long strike, 29 of our members, those with the least seniority, were not called back to work. Yet, they too had fought for the seniority rules that eventually had those with more seniority called back to work. These guys all had between 12 and 26 years of seniority and good and loyal uninterrupted service. They had contributed to the UI plan during all these years. Just the same, they did not qualify for benefits, while the scabs, who had worked unlawfully for 16 months, were treated with kid gloves and got full unemployment benefits.

It seems to us that this is a system that clearly works against workers who democratically decide to fight for their rights, against powerful and faceless companies like ADM, which pocket more than US $500 million in net profits every year.

We are definitely in favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in the Canada Labour Code, in order to send a very clear message to foreign employers like ADM. Their investments are welcome in Canada and Quebec, provided that they show a minimum of respect for our ways. And these rules cannot be easily broken, because the Government of Canada, supposedly the government of Canadian workers, will have given us the tools to resist if they want to challenge the consensus.

To those who think that prohibiting the use of scabs changes the balance unfairly in favour of the unions, I say “Have a look at things in Quebec and draw your own conclusions”. Workers do not enjoy being on strike. They exercise their right to strike only when they have no other choice, because it always ends up costing them a lot. In passing, if you can get yourself a worthwhile job when you are on strike, you let me know, particularly when unemployment seems forever high.

Instead of changing the balance in favour of the unions, prohibiting employers to use scabs brings the forces back into balance to a point that favours more reasonable negotiations where both employer and union work to quickly find a common ground, develop relations that will enable them to reconcile their divergent interests and find solutions that reflect their convergent interests.

That is why we want—

—the Canada Labour Code to be amended to prohibit the use of strikebreakers within the same meaning as in the Quebec labour code.

It is regrettable that the Government of Canada was not more receptive to this appeal, a dramatic one from a president speaking reasonably, honestly and courageously on behalf of his membership in a desire to advance the cause by suggesting useful amendments to the Canada Labour Code. But this government preferred to listen to management and cronies, as it so often does.

In conclusion, I draw members' attention to this issue of antiscab legislation, which exists in Quebec, but not in Canada, giving a constitutional flavour to the debate. In Quebec right now there are three categories of workers, which might very well get unionized employees in Quebec governed by the Canada Labour Code thinking. On the eve of the next referendum, people should give some thought to the fact that Quebec—not that we are boasting—is ahead of Canada in this area.

There are three categories of workers: non-unionized workers, unionized workers governed by the Quebec labour code and unionized workers who are protected by antiscab legislation in Quebec, and Quebec workers whose employment is governed by the Canada Labour Code, and who, if they ever went on strike, could see scabs turn up at any time and take away their jobs because they are governed by Canadian legislation that applies in Quebec.

In a sovereign Quebec, all Quebec workers governed by the Quebec labour code would be safe from the sudden arrival of scabs to undermine their strike force. I think this is something that could become important when Quebeckers are called upon in the near future, I am sure, to decide which side they are on. I think that here, as in other matters, Quebec shows itself to be a civilized, and forward-looking society, whose progress on social issues is unparalleled in the western world.