Debates of May 12th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

My hon. colleague on the government side seems to have all the answers, but I am sure we will have problems with it.

Motion No. 19 in Group No. 7, moved by the Bloc Quebecois, prohibits the use of replacement workers as long as the workers agree to perform the duties necessary to maintain the essential services referred to in subsection (1).

For example, during a postal strike, as long as postal workers agreed to deliver government cheques, Canada Post would not be allowed to hire replacement workers to perform these duties. That is what is proposed in the Bloc's motion.

We in the Conservative Party must vote against this motion. With this amendment, what cannot be done through the front door is done through the back door. Quite simply, we are against banning replacement workers.

Motion No. 25 put forward by the Reform Party deletes the clause on replacement workers altogether. We in the Conservative Party will vote for this motion.

We have an amendment that seeks to clarify this clause and to make its interpretation less ambiguous. If our changes are rejected, it would be better to completely eliminate the clause, so as to avoid any ambiguity that might give the board the power not to allow the use of replacement workers.

While Motion No. 26 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois seeks to completely prohibit the hiring of replacement workers, our amendment strikes a balance. Indeed, it is not reasonable to prohibit the use of replacement workers, because it would jeopardize the very existence of a business. What is the point of going on strike, if the business no longer exists at the conclusion of the negotiation process? Replacement workers must be available to provide the essential services that workers will not provide.

Our amendment, Motion No. 27, better reflects the spirit of the Simms report. It clearly states that replacement workers are not hired for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. The motion is clear, and if it is passed, there will definitely not be many questions. But I am sure that this evening, the government will vote against it. The motion is too clear for the government, which prefers a bit of confusion.

Motion No. 29 is proposed by the Reform Party. Motion No. 25 seeks to completely eliminate the clause on the use of replacement workers. If Motion No. 25 is passed, that clause will have to be deleted as well.

There are many motions before us today, and we think it is possible to make the bill fair. However, the government must listen to Canadians and to all the opposition parties which have made good suggestions, whether it is the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or our own party. I wonder about the New Democratic Party, if you follow me. We have an opportunity to do a good job.

While the new formulation comes closer to what the Sims task force on Bill C-19 had in mind, it is our opinion that it is still not made clear enough. This is not a general ban on the use of replacement workers. More important, it still does not properly address the meaning of the words used.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will say right at the start so that it does not get a scurry going that this is not a quorum call.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you hear me out on this issue because I am saying it in all sincerity. Given that opposition members would like as much time as possible to raise points on debate on the various amendments, some of which we may not even be able to get to, and given that the government would like to limit the time available for debate, I ask if it would be willing to yield the floor to opposition members. There is little time left and there is a whole group we have not be able to debate yet.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

I rise on the same point of order. Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that we had a whole day of debate last week in which members of the Reform Party refused to even discuss these motions. We have been in committee. They filibustered. Absolutely not.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for West Kootenay—Okanagan has asked for unanimous consent that the government yield to the opposition.

Does the government give unanimous consent to yield to the opposition for the time remaining in debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleagues across the way and I am dismayed to hear about the fact that suddenly we have invoked time allocation.

I ask hon. members across the way where they were during the discussions on Bill C-19. I would like to know where they were during the course of the filibuster when we had members of the official opposition obviously needing to go back to labour code 101 to understand the basics. It was very disappointing to see that of the 97 clauses there were nine amendments proposed by the official opposition, seven on clause 2.

On the road to Damascus they suddenly discovered the light. They discovered all sorts of new amendments. Where were they during the course of the debate that I participated in? I understand that members of the New Democratic Party were there. Unfortunately the Conservatives were not there during the filibuster. To suggest that the government is try to bring in closure on this important bill is absolutely ludicrous.

Dealing with the substance of the amendments before us, the approach in Bill C-19 is a very careful compromise on a very difficult issue. We recognize an employer's right to hire replacement workers for legitimate purposes. However, their use for the purpose of ridding the workplace of union representation would be unfair labour practice. This was the recommendation of the majority.

My colleague opposite talks about the fact that it was not unanimous, but the majority of the members of the Sims task force supported it. It was part of the overall package of recommendations which both labour and management considered acceptable.

Motions have been put forward which would radically alter this provision and therefore upset the overall balance of the proposed amendments we are trying to achieve. One motion calls for a general prohibition of the use of replacement workers. Another motion seeks to eliminate any restriction on their use. Still another motion seeks to add additional wording.

This provision was carefully examined during the parliamentary study of former Bill C-66. Again I hear that we are trying to rush the legislation through. Bill C-66 died when the election was called. We have been told time after time that this is an improvement on Bill C-66. If we are rushing the bill, I would like to know where the opposition was.

Some employer groups raised concerns about the wording of the provision in the former Bill C-66. They wanted the full text of the task force recommendations to be included. This was also the recommendation of the Senate committee which also studied the former Bill C-66.

What did the government do? The Minister of Labour responded to these concerns and changed the wording of the replacement worker provision in Bill C-19 to fully reflect the task force recommendation. To repeat that for the opposition, to make sure that the replacement worker provision was fully implemented the task force recommendation was put into the bill. Major federally regulated employers who appeared before the House committee during the study of the bill indicated that they were satisfied with the new wording. If members of the opposition were there they certainly would have heard that.

To those who wish to eliminate the provision I say there must be an appropriate remedy when an employer hires a replacement worker and then refuses to bargain in good faith. This provision provides in my view and certainly in the view of the government such a remedy.

When the television cameras are on we now get all the amendments. Obviously we need to have television cameras on all the time in committee and then maybe we would have some serious work done.

To those who want to prohibit the use of replacement workers a total ban on replacements would undermine the balance. The bill is trying to achieve a balance.

Finally to those who think more wording is needed I refer them to the position of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Maintaining its objection to the rationale for amending the code to include such a provision, the chamber representative told the standing committee:

We are pleased that the federal government heeded our concerns with respect to the earlier wording of this provision and is proposing to amend the legislation accordingly. In particular, the addition of the words “rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives” in proposed subsection 94(2.1) will ensure that any tribunal interpreting this legislation will be guided by the explicit obligation to consider the reason why the employer may have hired strike replacements rather than only the protection of a union's representation rights, as was the case under Bill C-66.

It is my view that the provisions that have been put forward in terms of the amendments be voted down.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to speak after listening to all that claptrap and bafflegab by the Liberal member who just spoke.

This is garbage about how we need television cameras in the committee room because then serious work will get done. We need something in the committee room so something serious gets done, but it is not TV cameras. It is the replacement of the majority of the people in there who act according to what the whip tells them. I have seen the whip's department in there watching how they vote on certain occasions to make sure they toe the party line.

In fact, one time they made a mistake in the transport committee. They actually had a Reform amendment that the hierarchy of the Liberal Party did not like, but it passed because there were a couple of Liberals who did not have their marching orders and consequently they voted according to what made sense instead of the directives of the Liberal hierarchy.

We came into this place at report stage and the Liberals made an amendment that changed the one that passed in committee. So much for the garbage spewed by the last speaker that we have to do things in committee where things are treated seriously.

As far as this business of replacement workers, it is really unfortunate that debate on this is going to be cut short. They say it should all be done in committee.

In committee we have three members. In this House we have 59. Basically they are denying 56 members the right to have a voice, to speak according to their constituents, to people they have consulted and according to their own beliefs. That is unacceptable. It is shameful.

They talk about democracy. They should not utter that word. It should not be coming out of their mouths.

Where I have a problem with the whole concept of replacement workers is that this act talks about who can decide when replacement workers can be used and when they cannot. The problem is where in here does it define exactly what a replacement worker is.

If you are working in a mill, operating a particular machine, and you go on strike and the company simply hires a different operator for that machine, that is a replacement worker. Frankly, I do not agree with that. Some of my colleagues may not happen to agree with me. That is fine. I think that is a replacement worker and I do not think that aspect of it should be allowed.

If on the other hand the company is owned by a particular individual and his wife and their business partner and they are able to keep that plant operating, then I think it is their right. It is their plant. Who are we or the labour relations board or anyone else to tell them they cannot run their own business? If there is a contract involved, they have to honour the obligations of that contract.

This allows the CIRB to actually make a decision. If the owner of the company does something and the union says that is taking away its powers because they are still making some money, the board says it will just shut them down. That is the power that this thing gives.

There is a bigger problem. The bigger problem is strikes. If there were no strikes, in a utopian world, we would not be arguing here today about whether there should be replacement workers. In a better world everybody would have a job. Everybody would be treated fairly. Negotiations would go smoothly. That would be just great. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world.

It might be a little more perfect if the other side would give us more time to discuss the possibilities and some of the things that might happen, but we get into this confrontational role and it does not want to hear other ideas. It is like the old adage, do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. I see them sitting laughing over there. I think it is great, at least somebody is in here to laugh. That is rare.

As far as whether replacement worker definition should be amended better, one of the things that is really sad about the death of democracy caused by the other side's vote this morning to restrict the debate is that we are not even going to get to Group No. 8. Group No. 8 would deal with something that would resolve the problem of replacement workers. Group No. 8 deals with an alternative to a strike. Would it not be wonderful if we could find a reasonable alternative to a strike?

We had the post office situation. This is something the Liberals should really appreciate because they just went through this. We had last year our fourth postal strike in ten years. Four times in the last ten years the governments of this country have allowed the post office, which is a monopoly, to shut down the mail service of this country. Each time the government says this is terrible, this is devastating, so it orders postal workers back to work.

It compounded the mistake with another mistake. The first mistake was to say “you can strike and restrict everybody and deprive them of their ability to have a mail service even though we have set it up so that there is only one possible alternative for you anyway to use the mail”. Then recognizing it made a mistake it made a second mistake by ordering postal workers back to work but not putting into place an alternative to going out on strike in the first place. Why should we be surprised if year after year, strike after strike we find ourselves right back in the same situation?

To make a mistake the first time I can understand. But when the same mistake is made over and over again then we have to start questioning the relative wisdom of the group that is making the mistake. The Liberal Party has certainly made that with the post office.

Now we have a potential strike of the air traffic system. I hope it does not go any further. For years that could not happen, but now they have been cut loose.

I tried in transport to get a provision put in that would provide an alternative to a strike-lockout dispute settlement mechanism. The vehicle we wanted to use was final offer arbitration. But the government in its wisdom chose not to do that.

Now we find ourselves in Bill C-19 arguing about replacement workers. Of course the government is going to be right back into that. It came up with the replacement worker concept for the air traffic controllers which basically put them in a situation where they could go on strike but when they were on strike everything carried on the same as always. So what does this do for the collective bargaining system the government claims it cherishes so much? It does not cherish it at all.

When we talk in terms of strikes, we do not talk about who wins and loses, because the winner is the person who loses the least. What is it going to take for the government to wake up? I am glad to see some of the Liberals are coming to their senses, coming over to the right side. I hope in doing that their minds change as well as their position, because if that happens we would make some progress in this place.

When there is a strike, and we do not even talk about replacement workers, we have a company that is deprived of their revenues, we have workers who are deprived of their income and we have all the supplemental collateral damage that is done to people all over other areas. Instead of talking about replacement workers, maybe we should be talking about replacing the dispute settlement mechanism in the labour code so that we actually have something that means Canadians will be able to keep their jobs and there will be a reasonable, viable alternative to going out on strike.

Going on strike or locking people out, if it happens to be the employer who initiates the labour disruption, is kind of like a duel where both sides shoot at one another.

I see I am even getting the victory sign from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I really like that. I think she finally realizes the error of her ways in the past and now she is actually ready to listen.

If nothing else happens out of all this debate, if we can get through to one poor soul on that side, then perhaps this will have been worth it.

The whole concept of replacement workers is wrong. We are approaching it from who decides when they can have them. The approach that should have been taken is what are replacement workers. The CIRB decides what hurts, what is okay, what is not, maybe it will flip a coin in the event of a strike. We cannot go tipping the scales by saying it is okay to change the formula for one side and not the other. I hate even to admit there is the possibility of a strike. We have to recognize we have a bigger problem and begin dealing with it with things like final offer arbitration.

However, as long as we are stuck in this system we need some kind of mechanism which states what constitutes a replacement worker. As long as the company is not using that type of person it is free to take those types of actions. Where we have someone who is clearly defined as a replacement worker there is no decision to make. It is black and white. They are not allowed to be used.

It is really unfortunate that we are dealing with an opposition of minds instead of dealing with solutions. We are in this confrontational position and unfortunately, because of the actions of the Liberal government today, the last and perhaps most important group, finding an alternative dispute settlement mechanism, will not even get debated. That is a shame.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in a few minutes we are going to be voting. We have something like 47 votes to go through so this is sort of the end of debate before closure. Closure happened 14 times in the 12 years when we had a Liberal government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau and we thought he was arrogant. This government has more than doubled that already.

I have talked on this bill at second reading and on Groups Nos. 1, 2, 6 and now 7. Group No. 7 deals with replacement workers. If there is one item where we can listen to rhetorical comment, polarized comment, entrenched comment, confrontational comment, unenlightened comment, blind comment or comment coloured by experiences, this is the one area of the bill where we are going to hear all that. We do not need that.

What we need is a vision that does not look at the past and does not lead us into poor management and poor union leadership where workers very often tend to come last. That is not what we need. We all know how bad it can get. We can count the ways very readily. We had the example that is often referred to with the Royal Oak mine in the north where we had replacement workers brought in. People lost their lives in an underground bombing over an issue.

At the other end of the scale we have small businesses with certification whereby the total business would be at risk just from a short targeted strike on that business. We need to balance all that. It is an important issue. It should be addressed in the collective agreement and if the agreement is suspended, which often occurs, both parties will agree to live up to their end of this bargain on replacement workers.

What we do not need is the CIRB to be put in the untenable position which this bill does of being able to prohibit the use of replacement workers if the CIRB determines their presence undermines the union. The CIRB should never be placed in that position.

Mr. Speaker, I notice you are signalling that my time is up. That is unfortunate because I had so much worthy material to present. I did not even get to the bottom line of my speech. However, I do appreciate the fact that you have given me this opportunity to exit. I look forward to the upcoming votes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 19 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will be please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.