moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-19, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 45 on page 19 and lines 1 to 4 on page 20 with the following:
“47.3 (1) In this section, “previous contractor” means an employer who, under the terms of a contract or other arrangement that is no longer in force, provided preboard security screening services to another employer, or to a person acting on behalf of that other employer, in an industry referred to in paragraph (e) of the definition “federal work, undertaking or business” in section 2.”
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-19, in Clause 45, be amended
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 35 with the following:
“tion 24(4) or 34(6), section 37, 50 or 69,”
(b) by replacing line 32 on page 35 with the following:
“subsection 24(4), paragraph”
Mr. Speaker, this clause of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, is dealing with successor rights in a contract.
What we are suggesting here is that a large section of this successor rights legislation should be removed because it basically gives too much discretionary power to the minister. We really do not think it is appropriate that the minister has the power to say which federally regulated industries or businesses are going to have this successor rights applied to them.
The minister and departmental officials have explained to the committee and to me that the biggest concern here was with preboarding screening at airports. When the people providing the services at the airports would organize then usually what would follow would be the sale of the business providing the contract to the airport. The sale of the business would nullify the union that had just been organized.
The department was telling us that it had a large concern in the area of security for airports, and that it was continually training and retraining people to do the work of screening at the airports. There was the possibility that security would not be as efficient and as effective as it should be. Perhaps we should give the minister and his department that much.
What we are saying is that we are not willing to allow the minister carte blanche on deciding which industries would be affected by these successor contracts, which businesses would be handcuffed by not being able to renegotiate with their employees should they take over in a bona fide sale condition.
There are other parts that apply to this portion that determine and define what is meant by sale, which in any sort of leasing program or rollover the business is deemed to have been sold.
My colleague from British Columbia is most anxious to speak to this bill and to this amendment. He has instances where railroads have been willing to close spur lines and private companies have been willing to buy up the line from them and start short line railroads. It is a disincentive to those fledgling businesses to take a contract that is going to handcuff them into paying the same sort of wages and benefits that CPR or CNR have been paying.
This is a disincentive to business. Some members on the government side have some concern with this part of the act. I am hopeful they will have an opportunity to address this in their remarks and I am hopeful they will concur with the Reform Party that this should be addressed. I am anticipating their overwhelming support for my motion.
The hon. member from Rainy River has some expertise in the railroads. I am positive that he will be on his feet in a few minutes to tell us about the great benefits in the railroad unions.
There is some merit to the aspect of preboarding screening. Everyone in Canada should feel secure that preboarding screening is done with the utmost of care and that no foreign materials or contraband can be smuggled on to aircraft. We all feel a lot better about that because we use those services so often.
It does not seem to matter what bill we are addressing in this House. Over an over again the governor in council has been given the latitude to make all kinds of rulings that should be addressed in legislation rather than left to the whim of the minister and cabinet.
The present government when it was in opposition certainly must have made similar representations at that time. I am very concerned because of what might happen through orders in council. I would ask them to consider very carefully this aspect of the bill.
The successor rights provided in this bill will have the effect of really tying in anybody who is a bona fide purchaser of any federally regulated industry to whatever contract the predecessor had. If the company was not flourishing at the time that the seller sold then it would be very difficult for a fledgling person to step into an area where he would have to compete with a global supplier as in the case of the railroads.
In Alberta there are short line railways. If they had to compete with all the classifications found in the unions as far as job descriptions and all the rest it would be very difficult for them. As it is they are in a position where they can provide a very effective service with minimal amounts tied up in labour capital.
One particular operator in Alberta is the engineer of a very successful short line railroad. I am sure he would most concerned if he were to read these portions of the bill.
In other sections of the bill we have to be very cognizant that the legislation the House of Commons passes should have some benefit for the average person in Canada. The average person in Canada is very dependent on the state of the economy, whether it is buoyant, stagnant or whether it is actually going backward. We would have to assess every piece of legislation to that effect and assess whether the average Canadian will benefit from the things we are talking about on the bill or whether this will make it easier to form unions, thereby benefiting the union bosses rather than the union rank and file.
I am certain there are other members who would like to add their wisdom to this portion of the bill which I would be most interested in hearing. I encourage members to vote in favour of this most sensible amendment.