Debates of May 8th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion 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 nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 8. 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 the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 30. 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 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 nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 30 stands deferred.

We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 3.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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this section, “previous contractor” means an employer who, under the terms of a contract or other arrangement that is no longer in force, provided preboard security screening services to another employer, or to a person acting on behalf of that other employer, in an industry referred to in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.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, successor rights provisions in the Canada Labour Code have not been interpreted to apply where there is a change of contractor.

As a result when employees of a contractor elect to unionize and bargain collectively they often lose their jobs or are forced to give up monetary benefits when the contract is awarded to another contractor.

As recommended by the Sims task force, Bill C-19 does not extend successor right provisions to loss of contract situation. The bill does include a provision applicable only to airport preboarding security screening contracts which serves a number of purposes. It protects the remuneration of a group of low wage employees who have lost their employment when a contractor has been able to win a tender by lowering wage rates. It codifies an existing Transport Canada policy which was negotiated with the airlines in 1998 to address questions about the quality of preboarding security screening services at Canadian airports. The official opposition has put forward a motion to delete paragraph B of the provision which would authorize the governor in council to extend application of this provision. Extension of the provision would be considered only should serious problems attributable to contract retendering arise in other services or sectors and only following thorough consultations with affected parties.

As members are no doubt aware, amending the Canada Labour Code can be a lengthy process. This provision will ensure that potentially serious situations can be addressed within reasonable timeframes.

Motion No. 28 would deny an employee any remedy if his or her employer violates section 47.3 by failing to pay equivalent remuneration.

I urge members to not support those motions.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motions No. 9 and 28 introduced by the Reform Party member, because they are related.

I think that the best way of understanding the doublespeak too often characteristic of legislation and officialdom is to read the explanatory notes provided by the government.

What we are to take from Motion No. 9 is that, because of the problems caused by the airline industry's practice of awarding successive contracts for pre-board security screening services, Transport Canada concluded, in 1988, an agreement with Canadian to protect the salaries and benefits of employees when pre-board security screening services were put out to tender. This is the policy that is codified in law.

The bill adds that it will be possible to extend the application of this provision to other sectors of activity that might, of course, be designated by regulations made by the governor in council. This has to do with the whole idea of the privatization of certain public services. Members know how popular this is right now.

It is the matter of the continuity of existing collective agreements, that is the improved general working conditions employees have managed to acquire over years, very often decades, of labour relations, particularly with respect to wages. This is what the Reform Party wants to lay open to question again.

This is most unfortunate, in our opinion, because these are social gains which have enabled us to live in what can be described as a civilized society, benefiting from the gains acquired by the labour movement at the cost of great struggle, and we must not forget this. Those gains have led to a more just society, at least in certain areas.

The Reform motion lays all of this open to question again, as it refuses to acknowledge the previous contractor, or in other words the obligation of the new contractor to provide employees with the same benefits they received before.

The Reform Party is also subtly challenging the board's ability to intervene. In order to be consistent with its own rather sneaky attack against the low wage earners, against unionized workers, it says that the board ought not to have the power to intervene under section 47.3, which deals with the previous contractor.

It wants this to be removed, which would mean the board could no longer invoke section 47.3, which applies to contractors and allows the board to require the party against which a complaint has been filed—since there is a right to file a complaint if one feels one is not being properly treated by a new contractor—to cease to contravene these requirements.

As a result of eliminating section 47.3 and the possibility of intervention if such cases do occur when there is more privatization as a result of increased deregulation and government withdrawal from certain areas, this will prevent the board from being able to order the employer to pay employees an amount equivalent to, or in excess of, the amount they would have been paid by the employer if there had not been a violation.

This gives a very good idea of the sort of mentality to be found in the official opposition, within this so-called reform party, which reforms from underneath, widens the gap between the rich and the poor and delights in the monstrous profits made by private industry, where there is no requirement to be accountable, except to the shareholders. They are almost congratulating themselves on the widening gap between the rich and the poor. They want to bring everyone down to the same level. They challenge such commendable things as unions. They challenge them instead of recognizing them.

The working conditions of the honest worker are at stake. This is what is being challenged by those who have a say, who polish their halos as they bend parliamentary procedures, as we have seen recently, and they are doing this on the backs of low income Canadians.

We must decry this with our very last breath, because, in the end, workers' dignity is at issue. The aim is to make the biggest profits with the lowest expenditure on the backs of the employees. This was curbed in the evolution of societies through the intervention of unions and the arrival of social programs. It was regulated somewhat. In today's neo-liberal context, there are lawyers of their ilk who defend the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and I think it is our job to criticize them.