Mr. Speaker, I am delighted once again to speak to Bill C-19. This bill is similar to last year's Bill C-66, which unfortunately was not passed by the Senate following the Prime Minister's decision to call an election.
Bill C-66 accordingly became Bill C-19. I think it should be put in context. I will try in the 40 minutes I have to illustrate as well as I can the position of the Bloc, which is opposed to this bill.
It implements reforms to the industrial relations provisions of part I of the Canada Labour Code, to provide a framework for collective bargaining that enhances the ability of labour and management to frame their own agreements and allows workplace disputes to be resolved in a timely and cost effective manner.
The highlights are as follows: a ) the creation of a representational board, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with appropriate powers to allow for the timely and cost effective administration of the regime; b ) streamlining of the conciliation process; c ) clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties during a work stoppage, including requirements for secret strike and lockout votes and advance strike and lockout notices; d ) a requirement for parties involved in a work stoppage to continue services necessary to protect public health or safety; e ) a requirement for the maintenance of services affecting grain shipments in the event of legal work stoppages by any third parties in the ports; f ) making the undermining of a trade union's representational capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair labour practice; and g )improving access to collective bargaining for off-site workers.
I must also mention that the text repeals the provisions of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act respecting trade unions.
The summary indicates the government's position and the scope of the issue. More specifically, the bill is a major one that will be part of the Canada Labour Code once it is passed.
It is a code, a regulated procedure that affects many Canadians. In fact, some 700,000 workers, or about 10% of the Canadian labour force, are governed by the Canada Labour Code, and 115,000 workers in Quebec are included and thus covered by the code.
It applies to very important areas of human activity in Canada and Quebec. It covers vast areas of endeavour: banking, international and interprovincial transportation, airports and air carriers, broadcasting and telecommunications, port operations and longshoring, grain handling. In addition, many crown corporations are covered by the Canada Labour Code.
The bill before us is a very important bill which affects a great many Canadians and Quebeckers in their daily lives.
In dealing with the matter at hand today, that is, part I of the Canada Labour Code regarding industrial relations, it is important to know that part II deals with occupational health and safety, and part III with labour standards in areas under federal jurisdiction.
To get where we are today, at third reading, large numbers of stakeholders first had to be consulted—the government deserves credit for that—and consultations have been under way since 1995, which produced what we have before us now, regardless of what we make of it as Quebeckers in Canada: a document which is moving the issue forward.
That is probably why our colleagues from the New Democratic Party supported this bill, which we, as Quebeckers, cannot support however as we consider, among other major reasons, that Quebec has a head start and should be leading the way instead of taking the Canadian lead.
Consultations were held starting in 1995 and a report entitled “Seeking a Balance”, better known as the Sims report, after the chairperson, was released in 1996 or 1997. In fact, there has been public recognition of this report and some consensus was reached on it in Canadian society. It is clear from the general satisfaction, except for some concerns, at times quite serious, expressed by many witnesses that this report was well received. There are however serious concerns which we share in particular with regard to replacement workers or scabs, as they are commonly referred to, where no consensus was reached.
Therefore, we feel this is an unfinished reform that made good sense at the start, but for which the necessary political courage was never displayed. This is what brings us to the negative assessment that we are making today. We are opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons and in spite of a seemingly positive attitude. Our reasons have to do with things that are in the bill, but also with things that are not in it.
Among the things that are included in the bill is the creation of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which used to be called the Canada Labour Relations Board. Here, the minister is taking a leap he should not take, even though the board and the government are pleased to call the new body a “representational board”. Of course it is representative of employer and labour organizations.
There are three union representatives and three management representatives on the board. However, the minister reserves the right to appoint board members, after consultation with the employer and labour organizations of his choice.
This, in our opinion, goes against the alleged representational nature of the board to be established under this bill. The minister should appoint people selected by each of the two groups, that is the employer organizations and the labour organizations. Instead, the minister prefers to choose among the employer and labour organizations that he will have selected himself.
This means that, ultimately, there will be members representing the employers or the unions who will not in fact be representative of these two groups, much to their discontent, particularly if the Minister of Labour decides to confuse things by appointing people who are not necessarily representative of the aspirations and concerns of either group.
This is a flaw that is difficult to explain, given the general atmosphere that seemingly prevailed at the end of the exercise.
What does not appear, however, are these five groups of workers who made historic representations to no longer be included in the Canada Labour Code. I am thinking of the flour mill workers. Following a difficult strike at Ogilvie in Montreal, a topic to which we will shortly return, the CSN requested that, in future, anything to do with flour mills should come under provincial jurisdiction, because they wanted nothing more to do with this Canadian approach, which left people battered at the end of a labour dispute that went on for 16 weeks, if I remember correctly.
There are undoubtedly valid historic reasons, but they are no longer valid today, in the opinion of these folks. What was acceptable in 1867 is no longer valid today and we question this desire on the part of the CSN, which wants to see its members—this is the primary reason and we will come back to this later—working in flour mills safe from the intervention of scabs. This is a big step.
We condemn the government for not being more receptive to these representations.
There are groups of workers, employees of the Government of Canada, who are complaining about the way they are treated, beginning with RCMP employees who, like those of the Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, have been making representations for a long time, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois.
This time, unfortunately, and it was not very nice of the government to have done this, it agreed to allow some groups to appear before the committee for hours, with very interesting results. These people honestly believed in the committee process, which is there to hear the parties, but they were told in the end that the Bloc Quebecois amendments—flowing from these interventions and from our sympathy for these three groups of workers in the RCMP, the Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada—were out of order.
I quote from the letter I received from the deputy principal clerk of the House a few months later. I will read it, so that the RCMP employees, the Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute may know we are concerned about them, but the government has proceeded in such a way as to make it impossible to table the amendments for procedural reasons, so the entire debate concerning these people was declared out of order for the following reason, and here I quote Mr. Marc Bosc, the deputy principal clerk:
The motions propose amendment of sections of the parent legislation which are not addressed in the bill—an amendment is not in order unless the section of the parent legislation—
This refers to the Canada Labour Code as a whole.
—addressed by the amendment is specifically covered by a clause in the bill. We cannot, consequently—put your motions on the order paper.
We tried to table the amendments. They were rejected with this explanation provided very honourably by the deputy principal clerk. However, we regret this tactic by the government which let people devote time and energy to this instead of warning them “Don't waste your time. As Bill C-19 stands, there is no question of it involving claims by the RCMP, PSAC or PIPS”.
This is a bit disappointing, since the problem raised by these groups is certainly not an invention.
The RCMP is the only police force in Canada that cannot properly negotiate with its employer. Employees are represented by some kind of small shop union whose structure they themselves condemn. They cannot negotiate anything about their work conditions.
Years have gone by. They even submitted to the government a bill drafted by their own legal advisors, but the government decided to ignore it. What is most appalling is that these employees, who are part of the only non-unionized police force in Canada and are not entitled to any kind of collective bargaining, are subject to the arbitrary actions of the government.
Through the management of the RCMP, the government is acting as judge and jury. This opens the door to some rather serious abuse, because the employees are dealt with on an individual basis, instead of as a group of workers recognized by the RCMP.
Again, we deplore the fact that the government does not seem to be overly concerned about the situation. They should at least reply to these people, tell them to stop deluding themselves, that the government—at least the current government—will never grant them their wishes.
The situation with the Public Service Alliance and the institute is just as serious. They dream of the day when they will no longer be subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but will come under the Canada Labour Code. In reality, it would give them the opportunity to talk more decently with their employer, almost as an equal, as workers have managed to do after a great struggle in the private sector and in Quebec in the public sector where the unions have much more recognition on matters that are not unimportant.
One need only have worked in big outfits, like the Government of Canada or the Government of Quebec, to know that talk of job security is not a trivial matter, especially when the employer is a partisan outfit known as the federal government. The people opposite, the Liberals, are pretty strong on this point, and can be judgmental.
We see that clearly today with the appointment of David Levine to head Montfort Hospital. How far can racism be pushed? Imagine discovering that an employee of the federal public service had sovereignist leanings. What danger lurks in this great Canadian democracy for such a person, given how they lynch a fine man, selected by a private company hired to find the best candidate. This is a man highly respected for his political opinions, his background and his professional ability. Look at the dirty deed being done with the support of those opposite.
When the people in the Public Service Alliance demand the power to negotiate as equals and decently with their employer, they are perfectly right to do so, in particular on the subject of job security.
There is the whole matter of technological change, which can land on the back of public servants, because there is no protection in this regard—we will come back to this—and the Canada Labour Code could have dealt with this, for private companies too.
However, public servants who are members of the Public Service Alliance cannot talk honestly about job classification or effectively about job descriptions, or of the appointment, promotion or transfer processes. These kind of things matter hugely when one works for a large body like the Public Service of Canada, with all the wheelings and dealings behind the scene one may have to contend with when there is no proper management framework and the employer can get away, as in this case, with being both judge and jury, employer and lawmaker.
This even goes as far as the right to arbitration. As far as we know, in the public service, arbitration decisions are final. No third party can step in to try to make things right. The right to grieve is affected as well.
This means that the employer, the Government of Canada, treats its employees pretty much like a small non unionized business would, because there is basically no recourse to deal with abuse.
Once again, we condemn this, and we deplore, in this instance, the fact that everything we just said was out of order to some extent, but the fact is that the government has chosen not to deal with this whole matter when it had a wonderful opportunity to do so.
The government has been completely insensitive to the central labour bodies' representations. I see this as a sign, a betrayal of the values the people on the other side supposedly stand for. I notice a number of very distinguished colleagues who are no doubt very sensitive to this kind of thing, like the situation of pregnant women working under conditions which may endanger their health and the health of their unborn child.
As I said, legitimate representations were made to the government, but once again it has been insensitive and failed to ensure that both it and private sector employers in Canada, who are covered by the Canada Labour Code, comply with similar requirements.
Let us see how this works in Quebec. It could be a source of ideas. In Quebec, the law provides for the protective re-assignment of pregnant women, to protect their health and the health of their baby.
All this is missing from the bill, and because of such deficiencies we cannot support it.
There is also the whole issue of technological changes which is very important in our changing economy, where the buzzwords are becoming scarier by the day, words like growth, productivity and contempt, and phrases like profit at all cost. I will come back later to the issue of contempt for the workers and their associations if I have the time.
Technological change is one of the dangers threatening workers because it is not curbed by the state. Yet, it should be the state's responsibility to ensure that the Government of Canada does not exclude its own employees and does not invite the private sector to do so.
Experience has shown that businesses in the private sector that have exhibited good management, open-mindedness and respect for their employees and that have recognized the role of their employees in managing technological change have benefited from that approach.
It would seem that it was asking too much of the Department of Labour's thinkers to address this issue, to include a provision so that workers and their associations would be invited to participate in managing technological change and to provide adequate authority for the protection of jobs and working conditions.
It is very disappointing. Since things are moving so fast, had officials in the Department of Labour been more forward looking, we could also have talked about the merger phenomenon, which may be justifiable. Mergers are not easy to manage in terms of opinions, especially bank mergers, but they may be justifiable on a macro level because of foreign competition.
However, what is definitely unacceptable is that workers end up paying the price for these mergers because productivity and greed become such primary concerns that people get laid off. We will have to find other ways to improve efficiency, in order to be able to compete on the international market. To say that costs were lower this year because 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 people were laid off—as was the case with some major corporations such as IBM and General Motors—is the easy solution.
Something is very wrong when one must have fired people over the last two or three years to be considered a good manager. We used to boast about job creation. Now, people are being laid off under the pretence of streamlining and improving effectiveness, productivity and growth.
One should wonder about growth. Anyone who ever heard Albert Jacquard talk on the issue of growth gets really worried about the evolution process. I am convinced that the hon. member, who really cares about the environment, is receptive to what I am saying. We must wonder about a concept such as growth. It might be negative growth.
Considering that natural resources are being systematically wasted, it might be appropriate to reflect, here and elsewhere, on where we are headed in terms of how we use our resources, and to urge other countries to do the same.
There is a problem with technological changes and also with protecting jobs following mergers. These issues should be discussed in a broad debate, and we should make sure that jobs are not affected. Otherwise, profits and money become our only values.
There is also a major problem that we do not have in the Quebec legislation, but that exists in the Canadian legislation. I am referring to the fact that there is no clause on “automatic renewal”. This means, then, that when a collective agreement expires and negotiations start, what has already been acquired remains in place until there is a new collective agreement signed, so that a legal vacuum does not ensue, which could in certain cases lead to considerable abuse. This is a significant shortcoming in this bill. Once again, Quebec seems to be further advanced in this area. Why not take a page from our book when it is something worthwhile?
One area that is very worrisome is the business about the government and the minister giving themselves the right to intervene in the voting process for a strike or lockout. It is very worrisome in that it is stated that the vote should be secret, which can be justified, and time limits are set for notice, 60 days for a strike, 72 hours for a lockout. That part is highly questionable and we are opposed to it.
Having this time limit of 60 days hinders the strike process, because 60 days after the vote there must be a strike, even if negotiations are under way. When the 60 days are up, another mandate must be sought, and we know how complicated this can be in a country that stretches from Newfoundland to British Columbia. We are, therefore, not convinced this is wise.
What is still more worrisome is the entire matter of how the vote is held and how it can be invalidated. This is not all that impressive, particularly coming from a Liberal federal government, when we are aware that in its own backyard, with the Canada Elections Act, all manner of abuses are permitted by the letter and spirit of the legislation, since we know that the returning officers in the ridings are still partisan appointments and that certain things have been done that are a direct attack on Quebec.
I do not know how things are done in other provinces, but with the special polls and the postal voting, envelopes are traded back and forth in senior citizens homes. During the election campaign, I got a call from one of my constituents, who told me: “Mr. the incumbent, I just visited a friend of mine in a senior citizens home and I saw something that has me concerned. There was a man who took some people to the kitchen. He took out an envelope containing a ballot. Then, he put that envelope in another envelope.” That is how postal voting is done and it gives free rein to every shady and unscrupulous party organizer with no respect for the law.
This may be a good idea, but it is so poorly regulated and controlled that it will open the door to all kinds of abuse. Yet, these are the people who are lecturing the unions about scrupulously polling the workers to find out their wishes, when it is clearly stated that the vote can be invalidated. It is a shame that these people would write such things in the bill. We are dead set against this kind of intrusion.
Since my time is quickly running out, I want to talk about one of the reasons why we are fundamentally opposed to this bill, and that is the whole issue of replacement workers, the possible hiring of scabs.
Again, we do not want to brag, but perhaps we could follow the example set by Quebec, which shows that it is better from a societal point of view to have antiscab legislation than to have people yielding to their instincts. It undermines the balance of power and badly hurts the unionized workers when their picket line is not respected.
I am going to read, as I did at second reading, from an extraordinary letter that should give the folks at the Department of Labour food for thought. It was written by the president of the CSN union at Ogilvie ADM following the strike. It takes courage to write as Claude Tremblay has done, and I am pleased to read this letter once again. The letter reads in part as follows:
The 110 workers I represent were more or less forced out on strike on June 16, 1994 after close to two years of unproductive negotiations with our new employer, the American giant—
This is a very important piece of information that should get all Canadians thinking. I continue:
—the American giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). After an attempt to force us to accept its collective agreement, ADM took advantage of a loophole in the Canada Labour Code to impose it on us effective December 10, 1993.
In fact, legal precedents applying to the Canada Labour Relations Board allow an employer to unilaterally modify working conditions, once the right to strike or lockout is acquired, even though our previous collective agreement called for it to be in effect until renewed.
Incidentally, this was alluded to earlier. That is what tacit, or automatic, renewal means.
Unfortunately, these precedents provide—and the Canada Labour Code has nothing to say on the matter—that such clauses are illegal and do not prevent the employer from taking advantage of the legal vacuum.
Since this employer-imposed agreement did away with our seniority rights and the employer was threatening lay-offs that were not in order of seniority, we were forced to walk out in order to prevent the employer from doing this and also to force it to maintain what we had acquired over more than 30 years.
Powerful employers like ADM, and most of the employers subject to the Canada Labour Code, have plenty of power already without being given the additional power to impose their working conditions as soon as they are entitled to lock out workers.
As a union, we believe that collective agreements should be maintained by law, at least until the right to strike is exercised. As well, the act ought to permit inclusion in a collective agreement of a clause allowing the working conditions it contains to remain in effect until renewal.
The act not only authorizes the use of strikebreakers, it encourages it.
After nearly 16 months of striking we managed to wring an ordinary collective agreement, ordinary within the context of Quebec, out of ADM. However, it was extraordinary compared to the American pattern of agreement ADM had forced on its employees in over 138 collective agreements throughout its empire.
Day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, we endured subtle, underhanded and persistent violence. The violence of watching scabs stealing our rights, trucks entering and leaving full of wheat or flour, the CUM police arresting colleagues for nothing, security guards hired by ADM spying on us with cameras on public roads and up to our doorsteps, as if we were some sort of scum.
The worst part was discovering on our return to work that the scabs had botched our production so badly as to threaten the quality of Five Roses flour. This reputation for quality is surely the best guarantee of our jobs. The law, however, encourages short-sighted employers to threaten the survival of a business by allowing them to use unskilled workers, only to give them a psychological advantage against us in negotiations.
How was this useful to ADM if, in its back to work agreement, the company not only agreed to fire these scabs but also promised not to rehire them for the duration of the collective agreement?
Not only does the Canada Labour Code not prohibit the hiring of scabs, but the employment office in Verdun—
This concerns the federal government.
—the employment office in Verdun was even called upon to recruit them.
We are talking here about scabs recruited by the federal government.
Two months after the end of a 15 month long strike, 29 of our members, those with the least seniority, were not called back to work. Yet, they too had fought for the seniority rules that eventually had those with more seniority called back to work. These guys all had between 12 and 26 years of seniority and good and loyal uninterrupted service. They had contributed to the UI plan during all these years. Just the same—
Those who were called back were not entitled to unemployment insurance.
Just the same, they did not qualify for benefits, while the scabs, who had worked unlawfully for 16 months, were treated with kid gloves and got full unemployment benefits.
It seems to us that this is a system that clearly works against workers who democratically decide to fight for their rights, against powerful and faceless companies like ADM, which pocket more than US$5 million in net profits every year.
We are definitely in favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in the Canada Labour Code, in order to send a very clear message to foreign employers like ADM—
This is very modern, I repeat.
We are definitely in favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in the Canada Labour Code, in order to send a very clear message to foreign employers like ADM. Their investments are welcome in Canada and Quebec, provided that they show a minimum of respect for our ways. And these rules cannot be easily broken, because the Government of Canada, supposedly the government of Canadian workers, will have given us the tools to resist if they want to challenge the consensus.
To those who think that prohibiting the use of scabs changes the balance unfairly in favour of the unions, I say—
This is still the union president talking, and I agree with what he says.
“Have a look at things in Quebec and draw your own conclusions”. Workers do not enjoy being on strike. They exercise their right to strike only when they have no other choice, because it always ends up costing them a lot. In passing, if you can get yourself a worthwhile job when you are on strike, you let me know, particularly when unemployment seems forever high.
Instead of changing the balance in favour of the unions, prohibiting employers to use scabs brings the forces back into balance to a point that favours more reasonable negotiations where both employer and union work to quickly find a common ground, develop relations that will enable them to reconcile their divergent interests and find solutions that reflect their convergent interests.
Despite such a clearly expressed and courageous letter, one must conclude that the Canadian federal government was insensitive to such a view, although it encourages in-depth reflection on the past, present and future labour relations of Canadian and Quebec workers faced with globalization and a world economy.
What is more, the federal government has caved in to the multinational lobby, and no doubt campaign bagmen as well, by adding the word “demonstrated” to the wording concerning scabs. It now reads “for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity”. This adjective adds to the burden of proof, because it is up to the labour union to prove that the hiring of scabs has undermined its representational capacity.
What goes still further is the motion made by Jean Charest's people. It is no doubt he who inspired Motion No. 27 of last week in which my hon. colleague for Madawaska—Restigouche moved—and I shall read it for the benefit of our viewers—a motion which dates no doubt from the time of Mr. Charest and does not sound promising for the workers of Quebec:
(2.2) For greater certainty, an employer shall be deemed not to have undermined a trade union's representational capacity by reason only of the employer's use of the service of a person referred to in subsection (2.1).
This represents the pseudo-progressive Conservatives well, and no doubt also reflects the profound thoughts of a man like Jean Charest, who wants to be in control of the destinies of the people of Quebec before long. We have news for him, both on the constitutional front and on the labour relations front.
There are lessons to be learned from the Canada Labour Code and its effect in Quebec. There are three types of workers in Quebec. We have non-unionized workers, which is unfortunate for them. Then we have unionized workers under the Quebec labour code who—and the code is very clear on this—cannot suffer the humiliation of being replaced by scabs if they decide to go on strike. Finally, we have the workers regulated by the Canada Labour Code, who can suffer the humiliation of being replaced by scabs who undermine the effect of a democratically called strike.
Things will be better in a free, sovereign and independent Quebec. The Quebec labour code will apply. It was originally passed in 1977, under the minister responsible at the time, Pierre-Marc Johnson. This was under a government led by a great democrat, René Lévesque. At the time, there was no consensus in Canada. That is the excuse we have been given, that there is no consensus in Canadian society. There was no consensus either at the time, but the Lévesque government and Minister Pierre-Marc Johnson demonstrated the political courage that was required.
What has been the impact of the antiscab provision over the past 21 years? Conflicts are shorter and there is no longer any violence wherever the Quebec code applies. However, there is still violence where the Canada Labour Code applies, as we recently saw during the strike affecting the port of Quebec City. It was not until the pressure built up and the conflict got out of hand that the federal government intervened in an appropriate manner. Why? Because the Canada Labour Code still allows the use of scabs.
Businesses subject to the Quebec labour code can no longer use scabs, and Quebeckers and the National Assembly must be praised for passing such legislation. Let us hope that the House of Commons will wake up some day and that the government in office will have the political courage to support workers in such an important matter.
