Mr. Speaker, I really hope the 130,000 prairie farmers who are waiting for this bill to be passed so that they can be comfortable that their grain will move without interruption this fall are taking note of the delays and the stalling tactics that have been going on in this House. I hope they are paying attention. I am sure they are. They will make good note of that.
What I was getting at and the reason I rose to speak is that while we are happy with the package in total, our one criticism of Bill C-19 is that the anti-scab aspects of the bill do not go far enough to really fulfill what the parties had in mind when they sat down to draft Bill C-19.
We understand that the whole package was a compromise. Nobody at the table really got everything they wanted. There was a lot of give and take and a lot of goodwill. Finding a balance is never easy, but having reviewed the motions we have before us from the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, I believe Motion Nos. 19 and 26 would serve the bill well in making it the piece of legislation Canadian industry really needs and should be asking for.
The virtues of anti-scab legislation are obvious. We have the case study right in the province next to us. We can look to the province of Quebec and monitor the experience and the benefits from its long tenure of the anti-scab bill. We know from that experience there are fewer days of lost time due to strikes and lockouts. The parties are not likely to risk pushing a bargaining session to an impasse knowing that their anti-scab legislation would preclude the ability of using replacement workers. Naturally the parties are forced to a position where they have to work a little harder to find a reasonable solution.
We also know that the incidence of picket line violence is lower. I agree with the previous speaker that we should not be charting our course by the lighting on a passing ship. What I mean to say is that we should not be crafting legislation to preclude violence. Nobody is going to be drafting legislation under threat or some veiled threat. That is not the case. The actual fact is that both parties often allow tempers to flare and incidents of violence do take place on picket lines when scabs try to cross picket lines. If that is precluded or eliminated, then there is not that problem.
I have been to the scene of strikes in the city of Montreal. I joined my fellow brothers with the carpenters union when they were striking in that industry in the city of Montreal. The first thing I did was I went to a major site where I knew there were carpenters working. I wanted to join them on the picket line, not really thinking through that there was not going to be a picket line. There did not need to be a picket line.
Picket lines are there to keep scabs out. Once it has been shown that there is a strike, a couple of placards are put up and the public knows there is a strike at the site and the product is hot as a result. There are no scabs crossing the line. There is no need for workers to be walking the line keeping vehicles from going in and out, et cetera. That is where things flare up.
Just the very fact that there is solid anti-scab legislation in the province of Quebec minimizes the number of days lost due to strikes and lockouts. It minimizes the incidents of people stooping to violence on either side, whether it is the replacement workers or frustrated employees at the location trying to defend their jobs.
Another aspect of Bill C-19 deals with anti-scab and I believe it needs to be improved. The burden of proof is currently on the union to demonstrate that the employer is using scabs in a way that undermines the bargaining rights of the union, or it is the intent to undermine the union by the use of scabs. Regarding that burden of proof, contrary to what we heard from the previous speaker, it is going to be very difficult to get any board to rule as to what was in the mind of the employer when the scabs were hired.
The advantage is clearly to the employer in the current language of Bill C-19 if it is not amended. I would certainly argue that it does not matter what labour leaders were quoted, obviously the advocates for the employees are going to argue that the union is trying to undermine the bargaining rights and that therefore the scabs should be outlawed. I frankly do not think that they would win. It would be a terrible uphill battle and a very difficult argument to win. The Reform Party should take some comfort in that. The way I read Bill C-19 on that aspect, the advantage is clearly for the employer.
This is one of the most sensitive parts of Bill C-19 for our caucus at least and for the labour movement. The right to withhold services in a way that puts economic pressure on the employer is the only peaceful means of negotiating benefits for workers that is available to us. It is really the only tool in our tool chest. When bargaining breaks down and we are trying to elevate the standards or the wages and working conditions for the people we represent, passive resistance and withholding service are the two things we can legally use to add weight to our points of view.
As a result, these clauses and the motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières are very important to us. They would add that small bit which is lacking in Bill C-19 to make it a truly satisfactory package that will add lasting labour peace to the Canadian industrial relations environment.
The whole idea of strikes and lockouts may get more attention than it deserves in these debates. It has been stated over and over again that over 95% of all rounds of bargaining are settled without any lost time. While lost time due to strikes and lockouts is a problem in the industry, it is dealt with in a way that is out of proportion.
In Manitoba we lose approximately 50,000 person days per year due to strikes and lockouts which is a big problem. Management howls about lost productivity and lost profits, et cetera. It is a problem. However we lose 550,000 person days per year due to injuries on the job and workplace accidents. If they are serious about lost productivity, the answer is to clean up the workplace, to stop the carnage in the workplace. Then those 50,000 person days lost per year will be put into perspective.
Another aspect deals with picket line incidents. One of the positive aspects of Bill C-19 is that employees who are off work for a strike or a lockout will be guaranteed their jobs when they go back. Those who may have been disciplined during their absence will have the right to the grievance procedure and arbitration. This is a case of natural justice. They should have access to some avenue of recourse. If in the heat of the moment an incident happens, this provision in Bill C-19 will recognize that everybody deserves the right to the use of that avenue of recourse.
Our caucus will be voting in favour of Motions Nos. 19 and 26. We believe they are necessary and that they will add substance and weight to what is already a worthy piece of legislation. In the interests of minimizing the lost time due to strikes and lockouts, I would hope the other members in the House can support the motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières.