Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at second reading of this important bill.
I am especially pleased to do so since I also participated in the debate when the bill was called Bill C-66 and since I was involved with a major central labour body in Quebec for many years. This is indeed a matter of great importance to me and it is from these various perspectives that I look at this bill.
I would like to start by saying—and I hope that government members will listen—that when this bill was first introduced in the House and referred to committee, the parliamentary process was short-circuited. Second reading was cut short to refer the bill to committee, where it was bulldozed through.
However, in dealing with this bill, it is extremely important that parliamentarians have the time to consider every clause. This act is not like any other act that usually goes through this House. Most acts we pass are not likely to be challenged in court. In fact, they are often akin to a government decree on some issue. A labour code, on the other hand, must be scrutinized line by line, word by word, and even between the lines. Jurisprudential decisions will be rendered. In the end, this code will regulate all labour relations.
It is essential that parliamentarians be given the time to examine the bill on their own, consult experts and form an opinion. Otherwise, regardless of whether they are on the government or the opposition side, parliamentarians may think of this process as nothing but red tape.
That having been said, and I hope it will be repeated, people were initially pleased with the intention of the bill. But when we saw this bill—I think I can speak of “we” meaning not just the unions, but labour relations people from both the management and union sides—a great many of us were worried.
We were worried for a number of reasons that I will give, bearing in mind that we are at second reading. I hope that the committee will hold substantial hearings during which these questions and objections can become amendments supported by the government, because we know that, if they are not, it will be difficult for the opposition, regardless of party.
First of all, I want to say that the minister, whether this one or the one before, kept telling us that the Industrial Relations Board would be representative. The idea is an interesting one. The problem is that the bill does not give us a representative board.
A reading of the bill reveals that the minister appoints “after consultation”. This means that the final decision is his. He does not make appointments from a joint list supplied by the unions and management. These persons, if selected in this fashion, might be representative. They could then play a role that was more active, with a greater impact on the respective parties.
A supposedly representative board is being deprived of some of the powers it could otherwise have. I am convinced that the parties will make representations on this important issue.
The bill, which comes after years under the existing act, should modernize labour relations, or at least adjust the legislation to the changes in that sector. It is a fact that globalization and the new economy, which has some advantages but also many drawbacks in terms of distribution and levels of income, including salaries, have changed labour relations.
I know that the unions have also taken a long look at the whole issue. I am a member of the Bloc Quebecois. I can attest to the fact that, since the eighties, the Quebec union movement has changed considerably and is now much more active in identifying the interests of businesses, not by ignoring those of workers, because a democratic union protects the interests of its members, but by getting involved, by knowing that jobs are created by the businesses, and by realizing that the more productive businesses are, the more competitive they will be and the greater the chances of preserving jobs and getting decent salaries. At least this is how it should be.
After some tough battles when conditions were difficult, the unions have changed some of their attitudes.
There have been some major changes in the world of labour relations, in labour organization. The exceptional agreement that was reached between Alcan and its employees testifies to that. In similar situations, the labour code has to help the parties, not hinder them.
Even more striking in this supposed reform of the Canada Labour Code is the fact that it provides less flexibility for the law and the minister to intervene. Instead of promoting dialogue and negotiation, even in the context of a balance of power, the supposed new code does the opposite. I have to say I have never understood why the departmental experts produce some of these provisions, including those pertaining to determination of the right to strike and ministerial intervention.
I would remind those watching us that the Canada Labour Code applies to only about 10% of unionized workers across Canada, and the situation is essentially the same in Quebec. I take this opportunity to point out something that is important in this House. The Privy Council in London finally decided in 1927 that labour relations were a provincial matter. In London, they often sided with the provinces, unlike the Supreme Court, which always upheld the federal government.
Some 10% of unionized workers are covered by the Canadian code, but these unions are rather special. Most of them are national or involved in areas under federal jurisdiction, such as shipping. The unions are often big ones that need time to conduct a vote.
I know our colleagues in the West are very concerned about what is happening with grain. As the critic during the rail strike, I realized the importance not only of labour relations and the union movement, but of the use of the powers of the minister and the House in connection with wheat.
It is essential that the committee look at the provision in the code requiring a union that has obtained the right to strike to exercise that right within 60 days of obtaining it. This is an extremely limiting provision, which is almost guaranteed to prevent a settlement. Why?
I said that many of these unions are big ones. Many of them are national and need time to obtain the right to strike. Sometimes the period between obtaining the right to strike and reaching a settlement can go well beyond 60 days.
Sight must not be lost of the fact that, often, a settlement is reached when management or the union is close to resorting to a strike or lock-out. However, when there is a cut-off point and the union does not want to find itself without a mandate, what will it do? It will break off negotiations before they are too far advanced and go after another strike mandate. This strikes me as sensible.
The only exception to the 60 days would be when both parties agreed to a postponement. If a dispute is intense, it is dangerous to think either party would agree.
This provision worries me, as does the one requiring 72 hours' notice of a lock-out or strike. This time, I will look at it from management's point of view.
An employer that intends to lock out its employees in 72 hours and so informs the union may find itself in the rather difficult situation of having to pay employees to do precious little because they know they are going to be locked out in 72 hours anyway.
If I look at it from the union's point of view, that of longshoremen, for instance—there are many of them—if they have to warn management that they are going to strike in 72 hours, what will happen? Ships that were scheduled to dock for unloading will have taken another route.
So, instead of making settlement easier, instead of using the imminent arrival of a ship for instance, they are taking away flexibility, taking away from the relationships of power for reaching a settlement.
When a strike or lockout occurs, it is because no agreement has been able to be reached. Of course this is always a sort of admission of failure, but at the same time it must be seen as the start of something new. Very often we have seen businesses, where labour relations had been difficult for years, go through a real conflict and then, afterward, the workers, the union representatives, the employer and its representatives start talking and a new and far different era in labour relations begins, because both sides have understood that to do otherwise was not in their best interests. They agree to listen to each other, and perhaps to take the concerns of both sides more into account. This was a common occurrence in the 1980s.
If this is to happen, the labour code must help make it happen. The code must not give one party an advantage, one which I would call an undue advantage, over the other. But what do we see here? The Canada Labour Code, while claiming to be modern, does not accept that employers should be forbidden to use scabs during a labour conflict.
There is one thing I can guarantee. When a company has used replacement workers, to use the euphemism, settlement may be difficult, but the subsequent return to work is far more difficult. I am arguing in favour of not losing sight of what will happen after the return to work, of ensuring an atmosphere that will lead to a proper organization of the work afterward.
There is no business anywhere that can thumb its nose at what the workers think—at any time, but particularly during and after a conflict—because those workers are the ones responsible for production, whether they use sophisticated machines or a hammer, they are the ones that make the company viable, the ones that make it profitable. This also applies to services.
The Canada Labour Code cannot not be seen as a piece of machinery with metal gears. It must respond to the current labour, business and economic situation. It must equip the parties to resolve their differences readily and then to start on a new footing, leaving the dispute behind as quickly as possible in order to move on to a new phase where work is assured and the business is competitive.
The committee has an important job to do. I will close by repeating that I hope it has the time to do it and pointing out that this legislation is not ordinary. It is legislation that becomes the law of the parties in its codicils and commas and therefore both its content and form must give both employees and businesses the means to resolve disputes and to play a role in this changeable economy, which is a challenge to everyone.