Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is trying to do in the House what it failed to do in the committee, that is actually to take a constructive part in the debate other than the filibuster we witnessed the other week.
Let us make clear what it is trying to do. It is nothing less than to remove strike and lockout rights from employees and employers subject to the Canada Labour Code.
Motions Nos. 18 and 20 would add hardship to the national economy as a criterion for maintenance of service requirements while Motions Nos. 22 and 23 would prohibit all strikes and lockouts in the ports.
Members of the official opposition have stated that they support collective bargaining and the right of workers to what they call strike peacefully. What does strike peacefully mean? For most it means a work stoppage free of violence, but for the official opposition it would appear to mean that a work stoppage has no economic impact.
This is a complete contradiction. The entire purpose of a strike or lockout is to impose economic sanctions in order to convince the other party to agree to terms and conditions of a collective agreement.
In democratic countries such as ours the right of workers to organize and begin collective bargaining is a fundamental right. This right is recognized in the international bill of human rights and in International Labour Organization conventions to which Canada is a signatory.
In democratic countries the right to strike or lockout by private sector parties is limited only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety. That is exactly what Bill C-19 proposes. There is no precedent in Canada to my knowledge for removing the strike and lockout rights from private sector parties for economic reasons.
Federally regulated employers and unions that negotiate under the Canada Labour Code specifically told the Sims task force—and I know the opposition remembers the Sims task force because we talked about it ad infinitum during the discussions—that they did not want their lockout and strike provisions removed. They did not want their disputes subject to binding third party determinations.
The federally regulated employers, transportation and communications, FETCO, which represents most major employers subject to the code said:
We do not want statutory authority to be given to the government to impose arbitration, alternative dispute mechanism, or unilaterally determine some of the provisions of the collective agreement itself.
The parties subject to the code agree that the appropriate criteria for maintenance of service requirements is protection of public health and safety.
On this point the Business Council of British Columbia told the task force:
The inclusion of a provision within the Canada Labour Code for designating “essential services” should be confined to matters deemed to be essential to the protection and maintenance of “public safety and health”.
The Sims task force did not recommend the removal of strike and lockout rights from any group of employees or any employer subject to the code. The vast majority of parties subject to the code do not support the removal of strike and lockout rights.
I urge members of the House not to support these amendments.