Mr. Speaker, upon reading Bill C-19, we wondered why the government, which is in its second mandate and which introduced this legislation in the previous Parliament, is proposing such an incomplete reform.
Why is it that the federal government, having seen firsthand—during the last Parliament—what the Ogilvie Mills workers went through because there was no anti-scab legislation, failed to address the concerns of these workers, particularly since the issue was dealt with some 20 years ago in Quebec?
Quebec has its own anti-scab legislation, like British Columbia. After creating some kind of a balance in the baragaining process, it was noticed that disputes were not as long and as bitter as they had been in the past.
We expected the government to do the same with this bill which, after all, is the outcome of lengthy reflection. Reforms to the Canada Labour Code are few and far between. The fact is the government did not make the changes required to make it a code that would truly give equal opportunities to both sides in the bargaining process.
Today's debate in the House makes me realize that, in Canada, there are many different societies, many different ways of seeing things. For Quebeckers, this debate is somewhat unreal, since we settled the issue of replacement workers a long time ago. Even the Conseil du patronat decided not to appeal, because it could see that, in terms of social peace, the situation was good enough, that we had an acceptable compromise, and that both sides were pleased with the results.
So, the federal reform should have included a true anti-scab policy, not the very weak provisions found in the bill. These provide, among others things, that businesses could be held accountable for hiring replacement workers only in cases where the union's representative capacity is undermined.
In other words, any employer can say “I am hiring scabs, but I certainly do not question the union's representative capacity. Look at the unions. Their members are picketing. I respect them. I respect them so much that I have scabs come in to replace them on the job”. The proposed system would allow and even condone such a situation. I find it unacceptable.
In my opinion, this is a fundamental reason to oppose the bill, because it does not have the required provisions to make this an adequate reform.
The bill contains other provisions that are not so great either. For instance, under section 108, the minister may interfere in the bargaining process, by ordering a vote on the employer's latest offers if the negotiations stall.
This will change the rules of the game. I think it will put undue pressure on the minister and allow management to put on the table slightly less generous proposals than those required to come to an agreement with the union. For the collective bargaining process to work, both sides must use their respective leverage to come to an agreement that is a mutually acceptable compromise.
In this case, any chance for a compromise will be swept aside because management will not have an opportunity to put its best offer forward since the minister may order a vote. That will directly interfere with labour relations and could eventually lead to a deterioration of labour relations within the organization.
There are other aspects that do not seem acceptable to us. No effort was made in this legislation to provide for the transfer of administrative responsibilities from the minister to the federal mediation and conciliation service. There is nothing to this effect in this bill, which may lead to a subjective interpretation of the various situations by the minister. This is another important point.
I will raise one last point, which seems very significant to me. The government would not allow appointments to the labour relations board to be made from lists submitted by labour or management. This reflects a lack of co-operation we might have expected. If the government had agreed to allow the parties to submit joint lists, when people whom both the employer and the union had agreed on had arbitration or other decisions to make with respect to labour relations, they would be on much more solid ground.
The minister did not go along with this position. He preferred to hold on to his discretionary right to appoint people, but not necessarily with the agreement of both parties. Obviously, in cases of disagreement, the minister could have had the final say. However, if there were the possibility of agreement between the union and the employer regarding the appointment of certain people, this would surely have meant that much more credibility for labour relations officers.
In conclusion, there are a number of aspects of this bill that should have been examined much more closely. This is not a government in its first few months in office. It has been in power for over four years and has seen labour relations close up. When in opposition, it favoured anti-scab measures that it did not have the courage to include in the bill.
Clearly, the government has listened to some lobby groups. This is the downside of how our political parties are funded. In any event, the odds are that this was what opened certain doors and left the way wide open in the bill for more painful situations, situations that are difficult for workers, for their families, and for employers.
The aftereffects of allowing strikebreakers to be hired, of making it legal for these people to work to the detriment of those who took the decision to strike, are important. I think the federal government would have done better to pay much more attention than it has to the particular situation in Quebec, where anti-scab legislation has been in effect for over 20 years. There are fewer work disputes, they do not last as long, and a better balance has been achieved. It is an example Canada should have followed.
When deciding whether or not to opt for sovereignty in the next few years, this is something Quebec's workers will have to bear in mind. When all Quebeckers are governed by the same labour code, they will have a chance at better benefits than those in the Canada Labour Code, because Quebec society is different, because it has decided to have its own distinct relations between workers and employers.
The federal government's bill lacks this significant component of Quebec society, one of the cornerstones of all labour relations. I believe all workers covered by the Canada Labour Code who work in Quebec at the present time would be prepared to accept having the federal legislation contain the same conditions as the Quebec code.
It is somewhat peculiar that Quebec will have three types of coverage for workers: the Canada Labour Code, non-unionized labour, and the Quebec Labour Code for all the rest. Especially when we see the Canadian code applied to sectors in which agreement could not be reached, such as Ogilvie Mills, could an effort not be made to resume discussions and ensure that the Canada Labour Code will include measures as generous and effective as those in the Quebec code?