Mr. Speaker, right off I would like to say how much pleasure it gives me to speak to this bill, especially to two parts of it.
Before my election to Parliament in 1993, I worked in labour relations for 16 years. I was able to see, through my own experience, how a labour relations system should be built to ensure harmonious relations in an organization. This is the aim.
The aim primarily is to ensure the parties agree and that they provide for mechanisms to settle their disputes. The situation would essentially be the same in a relationship or in a household when, in the course of a row, one person brings out the marriage contract and says it contains no provision for what the other wants and so the other does not need it or is entitled to it and so on. It would not be a pleasant situation.
We do not always carry a collective agreement around in our pockets. What we are talking about is GCS, as we call it, good common sense, where the aim is to try to reach an understanding. Unfortunately, there can be hitches, as there are in a relationship, and if the hitches are major, separation has to be considered as a possibility.
What I want to say to you is that Quebec is in the forefront in labour relations, despite what my colleague, the member for Calgary Northeast, may think when he cites various pieces of legislation. I am not alone in saying that. Our viewers are should read with papers on labour relations. Whether they be by professors from York University in Toronto or Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, everyone agrees that Quebec is a leader in labour relations. Should we apologize because we are at the front? Should we bring up the rear? The fact is, we are in the forefront.
In second place in the field of labour relations is British Columbia. I believe that province elected 24 or 25 Reform members in the recent elections. My numbers may not be quite right, but there are a good many Reform members from British Columbia, another province leading the field.
I therefore hope that Reform members who, like us, must be in close touch with their constituents, will be representing the views of the majority of those who voted for them. I have pointed this out at the beginning of my speech so that members will understand where I am coming from.
Second, I would like to mention a current situation that is clear proof of a misinformation campaign by our Liberal friends opposite. As the transportation critic, I was phoned at home on the weekend by workers governed by the Canada Labour Code. I also received faxes at the office. Basically, the comments were as follows.
I will read one of them: “This week in the House, the Bloc Quebecois said it was not supporting Bill C-19, primarily because it did not contain antiscab legislation”. That is true. “The Bloc Quebecois' message was heard loud and clear this week”. That is true. There is no longer a need to hold up this bill in the House. That is true.
Another comment reads: “I am worried by the fact that the Bloc Quebecois still intends to have four or five members speak in the House when the planned second reading resumes today, February, March 24. If you must speak in the House at this point, please do not prevent second reading from wrapping up on Tuesday the 24th. There is no point in delaying a bill”.
I have many examples of comments that were faxed to me.
What is going on is obvious. I asked the workers who telephoned me over the weekend why they were calling us. The Bloc Quebecois is not filibustering over Bill C-19. We are simply here to express the unanimous position of the labour relations community in Quebec. As proof, I will quote from the briefs of three central labour bodies, which were presented during hearings held in 1995 to examine this legislative reform before the standing committee responsible for labour issues.
The CSN's brief reads as follows: “To begin with, it should be remembered that antiscab provisions did not meet with unanimous approval when they were first introduced in Quebec. These fears proved unfounded, so unfounded that antiscab provisions are now no longer questioned, and can be said to be generally accepted in Quebec”.
According to the FTQ's brief, “it is essential for workers under federal jurisdiction to be able at last to benefit from anti-scab legislation. The federal code must be amended to include all those who work for crown corporations or private companies”.
The CLC stated it was their “firm opinion that employer use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts imposes needless and harmful tensions on labour-management relations”. Unfortunately, I must reply to them on television because I have been unable to contact them.
I find the Liberals' misinformation campaign indecent, to say the least. They have managed to plant the idea into these workers' heads that the Bloc is responsible for delaying passage of Bill C-19. We do not agree with the bill, but we are not filibustering on it.
We do not agree with the bill, particularly because there is no anti-scab clause. There are five or six points in all on which we do not agree. Our colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, illustrated those points very well yesterday. Why are we saying we do not agree with this bill because it contains no anti-scab clauses?
We have a wonderful motto in Quebec. Our motto is “Je me souviens”, I remember. We remember the United Aircraft, now Pratt & Whitney, dispute at Longueuil, in 1976. We remember the numerous and endless postal conflicts over the past 30 or 35 years, when fights actually broke out. We remember the 1973 conflict at Montreal radio station CJMS. We remember the Nationair conflict, when they kept their flights going by using strikebreakers.
We remember the Ogilvie Mills conflict, in which CSN members faced a multinational that was intent on crushing them. We remember the Royal Bank—the poor old Royal Bank, with its billions in profits in 1997—and its conflict in Kénogami from 1980 to 1982, which lasted close to a year and a half.
“Je me souviens”, I remember the strike currently going on in the Quebec City port. I also remember the recent strike of Air Alliance pilots, who worked hard to have their rights recognized, while their employer was renting aircraft from the private market to continue to fly people, even though the company's pilots were on strike. This is why I say to Air Alliance pilots that we agree Bill C-19 will correct certain things, but we also know that, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility, which is to condemn injustices and to make sure the Liberals make good on their commitments. The Liberals use double talk: they say one thing when they sit in opposition, and another when they are in office. The Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Not the Bloc Quebecois. We are here to defend the position and the rights of Quebec's workers. It is unacceptable that the 115 000 workers who have the misfortune, if you will, of being regulated by the Canada Labour Code cannot enjoy the same protection as those covered by the Quebec labour code.
Why should workers governed by the Canada Labour Code be treated like second class citizens? This is totally unacceptable.
We know that Air Alliance pilots, who are currently involved in a dispute with Air Canada pilots, will benefit from the bill. Therefore, it is out of the question for the Bloc Quebecois to unduly delay this legislation. As parliamentarians, we have a job to do and we hope the bill will follow its course. It will be referred to a committee that will hear witnesses who will submit briefs. The Bloc Quebecois will not delay the process in any way.
What do we want first and foremost? We want social peace and harmony for Quebec businesses.