Debates of May 1st, 2003

Supply

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all workers a happy Workers Day, this being May 1.

I also want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and his union involvement. Before entering politics, he did a great deal of work for trade unions.

Would my colleague not agree that, with regard to labour relations, especially during bargaining, during the renewal of a collective agreement, workers governed by the federal code are faced with bigger problems than those governed by the Quebec code? In Quebec, workers know that if things go badly, if there is a strike, the government prohibits scabs from entering the company concerned to do their work, which is not true under the Canada Labour Code.

I believe Canadian workers are at a disadvantage compared to workers governed by the Quebec code. Does my colleague believe this has an impact on bargaining? For instance, are workers governed by the Canada Labour Code not more vulnerable when their demands concern working conditions and wages, in view of the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads?

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his excellent question.

I have been through both situations. I was a labour leader when we had a six-month strike. It was very civilized. It lasted six months because we had to negotiate better working conditions. However, we negotiated under the Quebec essential services legislation. The employer respected essential services and so did the union. The atmosphere was agreeable and we had a good balance of power.

On the other hand, I have also been through a strike under the Canada Labour Code, and it was hell. It created upheaval and hatred. There was fighting and some people had their legs broken. Still today, some people will not talk to one another because of these unhealthy disputes. There is a legislative vacuum and we keep asking the federal government, “For the love of God, fill this vacuum; do as other provinces have done. Give us a tool to prevent such upheaval and fill this vacuum”. Let us not destroy forever relations which, with a good law, could be built again. The government recognizes rights and essential services, but it does not give us the tools to do the job.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the hon. member for Manicouagan on his excellent speech and comments. We can tell that he speaks from experience about something he really cares about.

I wonder what he thinks of the current federal labour minister's attitude when she says, “Unions and employers have agreed on what is in the Labour Code; it is not my duty to help move things forward”.

Does the hon. member think that the minister is showing all the leadership needed on this issue?

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Without a doubt, the minister lacks courage, transparency and accountability. Her main goal is to protect society, which starts with protecting the workers who are building this country.

Not so long ago, I had the opportunity to talk with some seniors. These wise citizens, who were once unionized, who have worked and built something, who now have children and grandchildren in the workforce, asked me at one point if the federal government was going to follow in the footsteps of Quebec and pass anti-scab legislation.

I told them what my colleague just pointed out, that this is not one of the major concerns of the labour minister, in Ottawa, although it should be. We will call on her to be in the House when we vote on the anti-scab measure brought forward by the hon. member for Laurentides. We urge the labour minister to take her responsibilities once and for all, to be transparent and to tell us if she is for or against anti-scab legislation.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, especially since today, May 1, is International Workers Day, and I take this opportunity to salute all workers.

I will go back to November 24, 1992, at a time when private members' bills were a very popular topic. That day, in the House of Commons, I introduced Bill C-376, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code. I asked for leave to introduce that bill to amend the Canada Labour Code with regard to scabs and essential services. In my remarks, I said:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code to preclude Crown corporations from using scabs during a strike and also to maintain essential services. Indeed, for some time now the major central labour bodies in Quebec have been shifting toward responsible and civilized trade unionism.

This bill will encourage workers to stand up for their rights and interests as members of a society where the improved standard of living of individuals is achieved through consultation.

I want to inform my Liberal colleagues that I will support these provisions, just as I supported the bill that was debated in the House in 1995 and that was introduced by the member for Manicouagan. If I am not mistaken, I believe it was Bill C-317. Today, we have Bill C-328, which was introduced by the member for Laurentides. It has already been debated for one hour in the House of Commons and is the 29th item in the order of precedence on the Order Paper. In a month or so, it will be debated again in the House, and I will support it.

But what should we do about this motion that is before the House on this opposition day? I must say that our society has come a long way since the first International Workers Day in 1886. Together, workers, employers, unions, governments and organizations of all kinds have made Canada what it is today.

We are very proud of and very grateful for this heritage from our ancestors. We all have the desire to continue to improve the well-being of Canadians and to ensure that Canada remains a great country in which to live. This is the goal that we have in mind every time we tackle an issue, including the reform of the Canada Labour Code.

In the case of the Canada Labour Code, we apply the basic principle of labour-management relations that says that employees and employers are in the best position to determine what is more appropriate for them.

We know that two provinces in Canada are against scabs. First, there is Quebec. Today, I salute the new Quebec premier who was democratically elected recently. The hon. Jean Charest spent several years here and will continue down the same path with respect to labour relations. British Columbia is also anti-scab.

Consequently, today, the government's role is to support employees and employers in their discussions and to help them find appropriate solutions to meet their needs. In some cases, it is possible to reach an agreement, as was the case with most of the key amendments made in 1999 to Part I of the Canada Labour Code. In other cases, however, it is more difficult to achieve a compromise. This is particularly so with replacement workers.

As the government says, this is a sensitive issue. But if we follow the same principle as the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, we will be able to find a solution. Today, we say that this sensitive issue has been debated many times over the years and that, each time, stakeholders maintained their initial position. We were able to see this once again during the extensive consultations that the Canadian government held in 1999 with representatives of labour and management as well as with many people who have a good knowledge of labour policy issues.

Unions almost unanimously support the implementation of legislative provisions prohibiting the use of replacement workers. For their part, employers are categorically opposed to such a measure. What is more, both employers and unions have legitimate arguments.

This is the case, among others, of the communications and transportation sector, where managers and supervisors often replace employees on strike or locked out. We have an example today with the issue of the communication sectors. Right now, and I want to say this, Radio-Nord strikers, who are members of the union of communication employees of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, have filed a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board for unfair practices.

Even though the strike started October 25, 2002, Radio Nord Communications is still broadcasting both on television and radio thanks to scabs. This is 2003, and today Radio-Nord, which is a big company—I cannot deny it, it is very well run—does not know how to manage its employees.

In our area, for instance, Radio-Nord has been cutting jobs for several years. Currently, management and contractors are replacing striking employees.

Radio Nord Communications has hired over 25 persons or businesses on contract to do the work of strikers in part or in whole. This is unfair. It is unfair for their families. Recently, I met one of my good colleagues, who is a journalist, Gilles Hamel, of Radio-Nord Val-d'Or. He came to my constituency office in Val-d'Or and told me, “Guy, the current strike is having an impact on children's school work, and on families too”. Why? Because Radio Nord is using scabs.

Today, the head of the union, André Anglehart, and several workers, men and women, are here in the House of Commons to protest against Radio-Nord Communications, which by using scabs has been denying them their bargaining rights.

A solution must be found. There is nothing difficult about it. We started working on the issue of scabs in 1999. Indeed, the Canadian labour minister should conduct another consultation and hold truly comprehensive meetings, maybe in a few weeks' time, since two provinces in Canada were able to find a solution, to see if the other provinces could do likewise.

However, there must be an outright ban on replacement workers during work stoppages. True, the code considers it to be an unfair labour practice to use such workers to undermine a union's representational capacity rather than to pursue legitimate bargaining objectives.

Under the current legislation, one can appeal the use of replacement workers. We would not need this motion if there were a recourse. It should be banned completely since we know that when an appeal is launched, it takes several weeks or months before the committee renders its decision. But it is always possible for unionized workers to lodge a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Since 1999, the Canada Labour Code has given employees an avenue of recourse. But we should also state that we are against the use of scabs, and then the employees would not have to wait for weeks for the Canada Industrial Relations Board's decision, and we would save the taxpayers money. If we are against the use of scabs, we should clearly say so once and for all.

The Board is an independent quasi-judicial body responsible for the interpretation and the enforcement of Part I and some provisions of Part II of the Canada Labour Code. It is composed of representatives of the employers and the unions, one chairperson and various independent vice-chairpersons.

We would only have to add one provision against scabs to the Canada Labour Code and that would be the end of it. There are many representations from employees and others today in this regard.

We are often asked why government did not ban the hiring of replacement workers when Part I of the Canada Labour Code was amended. That amendment did not completely ban the hiring of replacement workers during work stoppages.

The use of replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives will be considered an unfair labour practice.

The labour and management parties that bargain collectively under Part I of the Code have accepted this approach as being a reasonable compromise. They had in fact accepted a compromise back in 1999, but it is now 2003. We should make another compromise and not accept any scabs.

I know, I do sometimes go to the picket line in front of Radio-Nord in Val-d'Or. Managers are doing the work. Guys like Gilles Hamel come to my office to explain a few things to me. I often meet with a former union leader who is now retired, Antonio Bruno of the United Steelworkers of America. I saw him last week. He spoke to me about this strike that has gone on for six weeks.

In recent years, there have been two strikes in Val d'Or. A solution must be found. Credibility is being undermined, even within families.

We are still asking the same question, “Will the federal government admit that the amendments to Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code concerning replacement workers are ineffective?” They answer, “It is premature to conclude that the provisions on replacement workers are ineffective”.

Listen, we have examples of strikes going on right now. We have one in the communications sector in Val-d'Or. Radio Nord Communications is the best example we have. I am disappointed that they are here today. I am very disappointed that they are here today, on May 1, to defend their rights as workers as this should have been settled at the outset, on October 25, 2002. If the Canada Labour Code had banned strikebreakers, they would not be here today, six months later.

They were on strike in the north in the remote regions of Quebec. They picketed at -40

o

C. It went down to -52

o

C this winter in January and February. These people are diplomats. I met them a while ago in front of the Parliament buildings. I spoke with them and invited them in. About nine of them took me up on my offer. They are fine people, these men and women. They want the government to get involved for the sake of the future.

It is very easy. All it would take is to white-out one or two lines in the Canada Labour Code and write in “no strikebreakers will be permitted in future”.

I am in favour of this opposition day. When it is time to vote on the hon. member's private member's bill, I will vote in favour of it.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his convictions and for the courage he is showing in supporting our anti-scab bill.

Like my colleague, I met earlier with some Radio-Nord workers who are demonstrating on Parliament Hill today and who are going through a very stressful time. There is a serious income shortfall six months into a strike. People will often go into debt. They might lose their house and be unable to pay their rent, taxes, hydro and phone bills, to provide their kids with everything need and to put food on the table. Workers who get only about $200 a week during a strike that has been dragging for six months stand to lose everything and their families might end up on the streets.

We are not supporting the economy either. There is a lot of talk about the Canadian economy. But we are not supporting the Quebec economy either during all that time. Workers on strike no longer have any spending power. The whole climate in their company might never be the same.

Some day, these people may go back to work. It happened at Vidéotron after a 10 month strike. Workers are not always ecstatic about going back. Things might be friendlier if we had anti-scab legislation. Workers have to accept some major compromises. On a financial basis, they do not have any other choice. They can no longer remain on strike.

I was very pleased to hear my colleague say that he would vote for the bill. I find him very brave and I want to ask him if he believes that many other members of his party will also have the fortitude to support the long awaited anti-scab legislation in Parliament?

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be others.

I know that I am a former United Steelworkers of America union president, but that is not the only reason. These facts are important to the other members, even if they have not been union leaders or members.

Now, and for the past several months, there is nothing stopping Radio-Nord or any company from telling its employees, “We are against scabs. You win, we will not hire anyone”. But, for the past six months, Radio-Nord has been hiring people from Hull who come to Val-d'Or with expense accounts to replace inside workers.

But I hope that other members, more than one or two or three or four, will be in favour of including a provision in the Canada Labour Code prohibiting strikebreakers.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. His comments show that he is aware of what is at stake.

This is not simply about improving working conditions and bargaining for working conditions, but it is also about the possibility of ensuring that those involved in this bargaining are on an equal footing, so that acceptable agreements can be reached.

The example of Radio-Nord that the member has seen in his riding speaks volumes. There is one argument that he could make with his Liberal colleagues, and I invite him to do so. I recall that, when in opposition, the Liberal Party voted for this type of bill. I fail to understand why the Minister of Labour cannot be convinced now that not only must she follow up on the consensus that exists between workers and employers, but she must also be proactive and, as the member suggested at the beginning of his remarks, bring both parties to accept anti-scab rules, following which, concessions will be possible during bargaining.

Does he think he could convince the Minister of Labour and a majority of his Liberal colleagues to vote the same way they did on this issue before they came to power, and support passing this bill in the end? I am sure that in 20 years, Parliament will be as proud as Quebec's Parliament is for having passed anti-scab legislation in 1978.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

I agree, Mr. Speaker, and I will relay this to the Minister of Labour of Canada. There is no doubt that this would be easy to do, since it already exists in Quebec and in British Columbia, where disputes are settled without difficulty.

What is going on at Radio Nord today also affects families. This has been going on for far too long. In some cases, even a single day is too long, when it comes to not establishing the practice of hiring strikebreakers.

Company officials maintain that they are not using strikebreakers, that the people doing the work are from Hull, among other places, that they are management, contractors and so forth. The people at Radio Nord are very efficient, and we have nothing against them, but we have had it with strikebreakers in Abitibi.

In our region, we have been doing without news for six months. This is a company established in a vast region, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue. The public is suffering, and it feels bad for those employees who are not going back to work.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak today on this bill. This is a bill that I feel very strongly about, as do all the members of the Bloc Quebecois and a number of members in other parties, apparently.

Members have been asking over and over for such a bill to be passed. In this respect, I think that my colleague from Laurentides deserves our heartfelt gratitude. I do hope that this opposition day dedicated to this issue will help convince hon. members, particularly those in the Liberal majority, that it is appropriate to support this bill.

When this issue is raised in Quebec, the first thing people do is ask, “What are you talking about? We already have anti-strikebreaking legislation in Quebec. It has been in place for nearly 25 years. What is going on at the federal level? Why are you telling us there is no federal legislation dealing with this?”

Then we explain to them that the federal Parliament, through the Canada Labour Code, has never settled this matter, even though we raise it as often as we can. The thing that is difficult to understand is that, initially, when it was in opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada supported anti-scab legislation, and since it has been in power, it is systematically against it.

Usually, private members' bills provide an opportunity for members to express their views without having to toe the party line. Regarding the present bill introduced by the hon. member for Laurentides, we have even seen that a Liberal member will vote with the Bloc Quebecois on this motion, as will the NDP. I hope that members of the Liberal Party of Canada will help the minister and parliamentary secretary understand the facts. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour said;

The government believes the balanced approach that is set out in part I of the Canada Labour Code is the best way to deal with the issue in the federal jurisdiction. We do not see any compelling reason to change the law now.

That is something special. In my copy of the text, this sentence is underlined because, in fact, while the parliamentary secretary was speaking on behalf of the minister, the minister told us the same thing this morning. She said there is not any compelling reason to change the law now, but the fact is that some disputes go on for years.

For the employees at Cargill, happily, it will be over soon. In the case of the strike at Radio-Nord, some employees of that company have come here to express their support for this anti-scab bill. At Vidéotron, the strike lasted many months.

In all these examples, we note that if there had been an anti-strikebreaking law, perhaps there still would have been a strike, but in the distribution and balance of powers, it would not prevent people from resorting to their right to strike when appropriate. We would certainly have had disputes that lasted a much shorter time than they have.

I believe the Liberal Party needs to change its position. I call upon its members, every individual, every man and every woman, to reflect on this and think about whether the fairest point of view would not be the one they adopted before becoming the government, when they supported a similar bill. What logic can they use for having changed their minds today? It strikes me as totally unjustified.

What is worse, they are on side with the Canadian Alliance, which is opposed to this bill. We have read into the record some very convincing texts on this, which show what a really anti-union attitude the Alliance has, as it is even against the right to representation.

This is an attitude that ought not to be shared by the House as a whole. I invite hon. members, particularly those in the Liberal majority, to support my colleague's bill, one which is moreover supported by the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.

In the NDP, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who has always been very firm about what he has been know to call “Quebec separatists”, said these very words on this issue:

I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I hope one day our country will be as progressive as the Province of Quebec with respect to our labour code.

When those words come from the mouth of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, it must mean he was deeply concerned. As a sovereignist member of Parliament who wants to see Quebec become a country, I do not often enjoy the support of that colleague. Today, my colleague from Laurentides has obtained it for this anti-strikebreaker bill. I think this ought to lead to some reflection on the position each member will have to take when the bill is voted on.

The Progressive Conservative Party also supported the bill. The member for St. John's East said the following:

These are all reasonable clauses that should help employees and employers in their efforts to resolve differences in a very professional and rational manner.

We have had the possibility of passing such an anti-scab bill numerous times over the past 10 or 15 years. I think it would reflect well on this Parliament if it did so.

I will take this opportunity to tell the Speaker, since I forgot to do so when I started my speech, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.

If the House of Commons were to pass the bill, if today there seemed to be support in the House, in this Parliament, for the Bloc Quebecois' bill, the Minister of Labour would be compelled to reflect and take action, move forward rather than backward on this matter.

Currently, she is very defensive, saying that the Canada Labour Code reflects what the unions and employers were both prepared to accept. But the Minister of Labour is responsible for ensuring not only that the measures on which both parties agree are included in a labour code, but also that the Canada Labour Code is progressive.

In Quebec, scabs have not been used for the past 25 years, and this has led to healthier worker-employer relationships; this then is a good example to follow. If the Minister of Labour wants to be progressive, if she wants labour relations in Canada to improve, if she wants productivity rates to increase, if she wants the number of days unfortunately lost to strikes to decrease, if she also wants the families of workers in long term disputes not to suffer the consequences, then she must have a positive attitude.

Parliament should tell the Minister of Labour to take action, to go to the employers and the unions to tell them that she wants to work to enact anti-scab legislation; perhaps then we would see results, and the end result would be good.

In 1978, Pierre-Marc Johnson was Quebec's minister of labour in the first Parti Quebecois government. There was what is known in politics as a honeymoon, and there was a desire for change, and anti-scab legislation was implemented.

Today, no one in the Quebec Parliament would question those things because they have made for healthier relations between employers and employees. People who were opposed to them then for the same reasons as those who are opposed to them now realized that their arguments were groundless, and that it was advantageous for Quebec society, as it would be for Canadian society, to bring more civility to our labour relations.

Then we would have people who could bargain on an equal footing and reach better agreements.

The fact that the Quebec Labour Code banned the use of scabs resulted in employers being better respected by unionized workers and workers being better respected by employers. In the end, collective agreements were signed faster and better agreements were reached. Today, nobody is questioning this piece of legislation.

We would have expected the federal government to act. It is faced with terrible examples. I repeat: Vidéotron, a one-year strike; Cargill, a three-year strike; Radio Nord is currently on strike and the repercussions are far-reaching. A whole region is dependent on this communications network; journalists and strikebreakers are replacing those who were doing the job before. It creates a very unhealthy climate in the area. The situation is getting worse because the current law is not being amended. If it were, this situation would not recur in the future.

At Vidéotron, the strike would not have lasted one year if they had not used scabs, much less at Cargill. You should have seen the ships arriving at Baie-Comeau and the people who had been hired to unload them. We went there to see them and we saw them going in.

In conclusion, I will say this. The member for Laurentides deserves all our support for her bill. I hope that when the time comes to vote, we will be behind her and we will be part of a historical moment that—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Binet)]

The hon. member for Laurentides.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It shows how much the Bloc Quebecois cares about this bill, how interested it is in this legislation.

I would love to see other political parties in the House show as much interest in anti-scab legislation.

I met earlier with some employees of Radio-Nord. They described all the hardship they are going through in the absence of anti-scab legislation. Their employer is shamelessly using strikebreakers to broadcast its radio and television shows in that region, while its striking employees are picketing outside. Not an easy thing to do at -52

o

C, as my Liberal colleague pointed out.

Think also about the impact it is having on a place like Témiscamingue, where a whole group of workers and in fact the whole community is hurting. They live in a very small region. At the economic level, when these workers can no longer afford to buy food, pay their taxes, their mortgages, their hydro and phone bills, it is the whole community which has to pay the price. That should no longer be happening in 2003.

In 2003, the government is making billions of dollars in profits and surpluses in the EI fund, but we cannot pass anti-strikebreaking legislation that will cost the government nothing, nothing except political courage, something I have been hard-pressed to find in this House.

We are giving the government an opportunity to pass legislation to protect workers. Nobody in this House can tell me there is not one single federally regulated employee in his or her riding. There are some in all of our ridings. We are all affected by this legislation and all of us must represent our voters.

It is unacceptable to vote as we are told to by a minister. I for one feel I have a responsibility to vote according to the needs of my fellow citizens. If they tell me they need this kind of legislation, I will vote for it. Sitting across the way would not change how I vote, because my primary duty is to represent my voters.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on this and tell me if they had similar disputes in his riding and what he thinks about it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did go to the Vidéotron workers' picket line in Rivière-du-Loup. They were locked out for almost a year. I met with them right at the beginning to support their position.

I would like to put on the record an observation by Paul-André Lapointe, a professor in the labour relations department at Laval University. It captures exactly what these people went through during this dispute:

In the absence of federal legislation, a dispute turns into a war of attrition where the most powerful wins. This encourages traditional strategies that are disruptive and damaging for economic and social performance.

I think this is the most concise explanation of what happened in the Vidéotron dispute.

Besides, if our labour code prohibited the hiring of strikebreakers, we would not have had to go through this, as is clear from what I just read. This dispute hurt not only workers but the employer as well. It was terribly expensive for the employer to find a way out and save face after using all kinds of tough measures against the workers. Workers had to do the same.

Thanks to our anti-scab legislation in Quebec, we no longer have this kind of behaviour, or very seldom. If honourable members do not believe us, they should talk to employers, workers and employer associations in Quebec. They will find out that nobody would like to do away with this legislation, which has made it possible to regularize labour relations and make them more civilized, and which has ultimately reduced the number of strike days.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

Today being May 1, which is International Workers Day, the Bloc Quebecois motion that we are debating in the House is even more important.

The motion reads as follows:

That this Houserecognize the urgency of amending the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of strikebreakers.

I am from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, the most unionized region in Quebec, and I am proud to say so. I am proud to say that, over the years, my region has contributed to the constant evolution of Quebec's society. It has helped workers, employers and society as a whole to feel comfortable within a specific framework which everyone helped put in place.

I fail to understand why the government is being so stubborn. I do not know if it can be so out of touch. However, today, it will have to tell all workers how out of touch it really is. The members opposite ask these people to elect them, but once they are elected, they do not represent them.

I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Quebecois, which is here to protect the rights of workers. I am also proud to be a colleague of the member for Laurentides, who introduced Bill C-328, the purpose of which is to eliminate the regressive practice of using scabs during strikes or lockouts.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois are also stubborn. We are here to promote the sovereignty of Quebec. We are here, in this federal institution, to defend our workers as well as our constituents.

With the member for Laurentides and all our colleagues, we will fight hard to have this bill passed in the House, urging every member on the government side as well as those in the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to get involved and to do a little bit of soul-searching. Then they will be able to say what they think by going back to their true fundamental values, those of a fair and just society.

When we work, we have the right to do so under conditions that allow us to give our most to our employer. However, we should expect the same in return from the employer when it comes to its workers. They have the right to ask their legislators to come up with legislation to protect them and defend their fundamental values. The Canada Labour Code does not do this.

When I was young, I witnessed barbaric strikes in my region. They did nothing to improve anything for either party. In the end, people need to sit down and bargain. However, individuals, society and the people of my region will never forget. Ask around in Jonquière and people will talk to you about the strikes they lived through.

This is 2003, Quebec has had anti-scab legislation for 26 years now. That is something. People always say that Quebec society is a modern society, one that listens to people. This is yet another example here of how Quebec society is progressive.

It was the late René Lévesque, in 1977, who allowed the National Assembly to pass this legislation, which prevents employers from hiring people to do the jobs of workers who are walking the picket lines.

Before being a member of Parliament, I walked the picket lines to defend the interests of my workers who were subject to the Canada Labour Code. It was not pretty. At five in the morning, it was minus 40 degrees and we were picketing to prevent scabs from crossing the line. That is what I remember.

Today I still run across people who were picketing with me. They still remember, and nothing has been the same for them since then. It is a misconception that there is no social role for the government when it comes to workers and the people who make up the society that it represents.

I refuse to believe this. I am a girl from the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region, from a family of die-hard unionists.

My father, who is now deceased, worked at the Alcan plant. At the time, the Alcan plant in Arvida was not a great place to work. There was pollution; it was a horrible environment. What changed labour conditions? What ensured a balance between the employers and the workers? The unions did. Thanks to proactive measures adopted by the Quebec government we can say, in my riding today, that there have not been any strikes for a long time, with the exception of the Vidéotron strike.

Why was there a strike at Vidéotron? There are many reasons. One of them is because it was under the Canada Labour Code. That is the starting point.

I refuse to listen to double talk any longer. I feel sorry for the Minister of Labour. I know her personally. She is a woman with a big heart. I know that today she must be very uncomfortable. I know that she has feelings and that she has to defend the position of her government, which will not lift a finger to help the workers.

However, when the time comes to plunder the employment insurance fund, it does not ask for permission. It says, “Hey there, back off, we decide”. It always looks good and always puts on its kid gloves to talk to workers. It does not do so when the time comes to return the favour, as I am sure the Liberal government's Minister of Labour would like to do. It says to workers, “Forget it”. This is unacceptable.

On this day, May 1, International Workers' Day, I ask all my colleagues from all parties to do some soul-searching, to live by their values and to say yes, we will be with you and we will work with you toward creating a society that is increasingly just and fair for those who are part of it.

I ask them to be there for the vote, but to vote as their conscience dictates, to set aside party lines and to answer our appeal. It is not true that there are not people in their region and their riding who do not come under the Labour Code. In my riding, there are people at the tax centre, there are postal workers. There is a lot of people. They are the ones I will defend. This is why I commend my colleague from Laurentides for asking that this opposition day be used to discuss her bill.

We are with her, we will continue to fight and we will get these changes for workers implemented.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Jonquière for her eloquent speech. She is right. We are here to represent our workers.

I was saying earlier that there is not one member in this House who does not have voters working in federally regulated jobs. We all have them and we are all responsible for the position that we adopt regarding these people.

These people are all in favour of the anti-scab bill. There is not one worker in a federally regulated job who is against anti-scab legislation. This kind of legislation is designed to protect them, to ensure proper bargaining between employers and employees, and to ensure that nobody will be brought in to do their work.

I was talking about small communities. Just imagine a community where people on strike, out on the picket line, see scabs coming in to do their work. Very often these scabs are neighbours, friends or even relatives. Just imagine the problems this can create in a community.

And when it lasts for 10 months, it is even worse. When workers finally go back to their jobs, they do so in a totally negative atmosphere. None of them feel like going back to work. In the end, they have had to give up things that were probably essential to them, but they have no more money, they can no longer walk the picket line. They have to back down. Nobody should have to back down in 2003.

There is one thing I would like to ask my colleague. I remember going to her riding last summer during the Vidéotron strike. We met with the unions. I would like her to tell us about some of the things she saw happen to the Vidéotron workers in her riding. What were the consequences of this 10-month strike in the community?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides for her question. Today, I am struggling with my feelings as a woman and my feelings as a politician and a mother.

Last summer, I attended some meetings with my hon. colleague, when she paid us a visit in my region. I also met with some Vidéotron employees and their union representatives. I remember everything they told us. Some of them were going through breakups. They were happy before. They had a spouse and children. But the strike devastated their emotional, family and social lives. It is serious.

What is important in life is to get along with our relatives, members of our community, the people around us and our co-workers, not to consider them as bulls in a china shop. It is human nature.

People keep saying that society is becoming increasingly dehumanized. The Canada Labour Code dehumanizes society. The government has to agree to pass anti-scab legislation.

My hon. colleague from Laurentides asked me to give some examples. I remember all these men and women who had come to meet with us. It was very hot on the day my hon. colleague and I toured my riding. It was one of the most beautiful days in Saguenay. However, there was no smile on the faces of these people, no sparkle in their eyes. They were all so sad.

I cannot believe we are putting all these workers through so much pain. As the member for Laurentides pointed out, this would not cost the government a penny. It is only a question of political will.

It is now up to the government to show us that it cares and that it has the political will to act.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate on the opposition day motion on changes to the Canada Labour Code.

It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker. She spoke with a great deal of passion about the strikes and so forth that have happened in her riding. It was interesting to hear her say that when members get here they no longer seem to represent the interests of the people in their riding. At the same time she talked about her agenda of sovereignty. If I recall the last polls and the last provincial election in the province of Quebec, the people of Quebec said they do not want to talk about sovereignty. I guess she is an example of that sort of thing.

There is no question that organized labour has made great gains for the working people of this country. My riding has a plethora of auto workers. General Motors is a big manufacturer in Oshawa and Durham. Many of these workers have told me about the hard times they have had in order to gain the great benefits they currently enjoy. With that consistency they are very happy and very proud of the automobiles they manufacture in Oshawa, of which 80% are exported to the United States. They make a fine product and are very proud of their jobs. I thought I would mention them today to say that I understand some of the labour problems because I have seen some of the strikes that have happened.

A strike in and of itself is a conflict. It does not surprise me that the Bloc would bring forward this motion today. Sadly, looking at some of the labour statistics in that province, Quebec has had one of the highest percentages of work stoppages in Canada.

We are trying to compete in a global environment. That means we need a productive labour force. We have to be able to consistently deliver products to our customers, but that does not mean it is at the expense of labour or at the expense of their benefits or protection they have received and other things that are very important.

However, this mode of gaining benefits or recognition of problems that occur on the work site is probably the worst solution. A strike to me is a definition of failure in labour negotiations. I do not think either employers or employees ultimately want work stoppages. We have to find a better way. There have been a number of other models that seem to have worked more effectively. A lot of us will recall some of the Japanese models and others.

I talked about General Motors being organized. At the same time it has a concern that some Japanese labour plants which are operating effectively and efficiently in Canada are not part of organized labour, yet their wage rates and benefit packages are equally as high. This is not to denigrate the union movement and all the wonderful things it has gained, but the question is whether there are more effective ways to resolve disputes.

It goes back to some of our basic teachings in economics. I remember when I was learning economics people were talking about the alienation of workers from the means of production. That is sort of the basic philosophy of a lot of the conflict that has occurred within labour and its tremendous struggle to gain benefits which it so rightly deserves. That alienation basically meant that since the worker did not own or control the actual means of production, he or she therefore had a natural alienation from the employer and by definition they were in conflict.

That is the old school of labour negotiations. In some ways this whole debate hearkens back to the sixties and seventies where this was a prevalent school of thought. This whole concept of whether we need anti-strikebreaking legislation and so forth seems to me an add on to that.

As I understand it, this motion centres on how much latitude employers should possess to keep their businesses operational in the case of a strike. Clearly, the motion reflects the view of labour unions which contends that replacement workers ought not to be allowed in any case and that business operations should be restricted as much as possible during work stoppage. In other words, we should essentially grind the business to a halt.

From time to time we will talk about essential services. Most people will say that if it is an essential service, possibly they do not have the right to strike, and indeed we removed the right to strike in many sectors of our economy. Disruptions occur even in the private sector, whether it is an automobile plant, a telephone company, or freight trains. I recall coming into the House a number of summers ago to legislate the railway workers back to work. They had entered into a strike that would have brought the whole transportation system of our country to a standstill. I do not like that either. The whole idea of a legislative solution is just one more further nail in the coffin of the organized labour movement because it is saying that the whole negotiation process between the employer and employee has failed. This proposed amendment seems to even go further in ensuring that an employer would have to cease operations.

I understand the importance of a strike. When we come to a strike, it should have some meaningful effect. Clearly, employers should not be going out replacing all of their employees with non-union employees just for the purpose of breaking a strike. However, there must be some kind of a balance between that philosophy and one which simply tries to hold up the employer's business basically to ransom.

I recall dealing with grain shipments out of the port of Vancouver and also out of the port of Montreal, and negotiating grain sale agreements with China. I was surprised that the first thing China said was that it wanted a guaranteed delivery date because historically in agreements with Canada we have not been able to meet our delivery dates simply because we have a plethora of labour problems in our country. It was a seemingly odd thing for a communist country to say, but China did not believe we would deliver in time because it did not believe our workers were capable of doing that. I thought that was a terrible slight on Canada and its ability to earn the respect of carrying on productive business throughout the world.

This motion rejects the view held by employer organizations who believe that businesses have the right to continue operations as best they can during a strike. Once again, I do not mean that they will be in full production. Most of us know that they have the right to reallocate labour within their business units. We do not expect them to be able to completely replace the labour. Indeed, within the Canada Labour Code it restricts the ability to replace workers where the purpose of which is simply to undermine the workers themselves. In other words, to replace worker A with worker B. However, it is clear that if an absolute stoppage occurs that there may well be some areas where an employer needs other people just to maintain the site. I know it is almost impossible for General Motors to stop the production line because to get the line up and physically going again takes weeks sometimes.

That one-sided approach is not in keeping with the way the Canada Labour Code has evolved in recent years. It is not in keeping with the approach our government has encouraged and helped to succeed. Our government has taken the view that labour unions and employers must build an industrial relations system that creates a climate within which both can work. Yes, there will be profound differences, but the goal is to create a framework that enables employers and workers to resolve their workplace issues to the greatest extent possible on their own.

The process in recent years to explore each part of the Canada Labour Code has demonstrated how that commitment has been put into practice in reviewing this key legislation. The government started the process. When I look at the Canada Labour Code and listen to the request for amendments, I see that the Canada Labour Code has been revised as recently as 1999. These issues about replacement labour have been discussed at length with organized labour and with employers, et cetera.

Did they come to some kind of an agreement? I do not think they came to an agreement where either one of them were particularly happy, but the point is that they could both live with this agreement. It seems to me that the motion being put forward by the member for Laurentides today tips the balance the other way, so that in fact there would be a group of people who probably could not live with these amendments.

The government started this process by consulting workers, unions, employers, business organizations, industrial relations and human resources experts, as well as many others. The objective was to identify priorities for the revision of part I of the code. The government also created an independent task force to take a look at part I and return with its own recommendations for action, once again based upon an attempt to reach consensus wherever possible.

While the question of replacement workers was a point of deep division, there was consensus on many other issues. The government moved forward on a common ground that led to legislation that Parliament debated and passed, and has been law since the current labour code came into force in January 1999. So, this is a fairly recent revision to the act.

Did that mean that there was no movement at all on the issue of replacement workers? To hear some of the points that the members from the Bloc are making, one would conclude just that. Yet Parliament did agree with the government on five important restrictions on the use of replacement workers. This is important because as we listen to the debate today it would appear that there are no restrictions on the use of replacement workers, and that just is not the case. Once again, it is trying to find that healthy balance between employers and employees to ensure that the element of strike is still available to employees, but that it is not such a disastrous thing that it totally shuts down and in fact may cause costs that are irreparable, both to employers and employees.

First, an employer cannot bring in new people if it is simply to undermine the union's legitimate bargaining objectives. Doing that would be an unfair labour practice under the code. In other words, we have unfair labour practices under the code that prohibit the actual use of replacement workers, the prime purpose of which is to undermine the bargaining position of the union.

Members can see that these are tempered measures that are already in the legislation. It would be an action that the union could take to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for review and a decision. It is worth noting that there have been 11 such complaints since the amended code came into effect in 1999. In eight of these cases the complaint was eventually withdrawn while three are still before the board awaiting decision.

I want to remind my hon. colleagues that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is an independent third party. It is outside of the labour employer relationship and outside of the Canada Labour Code in a sense. The board has an equal number of members who come from employer and employee groups so that they are represented on the industrial labour relations board by individuals who have an expertise in industrial relations. This is important because this is the way to solve these disputes. They are fairly heavy on work stoppage and they are essentially looking for a solution to the work stoppage. We must have mechanisms in place that bring that about. The board is headed by an independent chairperson.

Second, it is now clear in law that replacement workers are excluded from the status of employees in the bargaining unit. A replacement worker cannot take part in a vote to replace or renew a union or a vote related to collective bargaining. In other words, employers cannot bring in replacement workers, the purpose of which is to deregister a union by saying they are part of the bargaining unit and therefore there will be a vote and therefore the union will be deregistered. This would be another way that it would be unfair to workers and their collective bargaining units.

Third, the code explicitly recognizes that employees in the bargaining unit have a right to return to their jobs at the end of the work stoppage ahead of any replacement worker. It acknowledges the importance of seniority. In other words, even though somebody had to replace somebody for some specific reason, a specific reason which is not deemed to undermine the collective bargaining position, if the work resumed, say a year after the fact, any such persons who were hired would basically be subordinated to the existing people who were on strike.

Fourth, any applications under the code to change or decertify a union during a prolonged work stoppage require the consent of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. This is a change from the old provisions that enabled an employer to apply to decertify a union after six months of work stoppage. This is another way in which bargaining units have been protected, yet employees who are fired or disciplined during a work stoppage can go to a grievance arbitration. None of these measures interfere with the employers trying to keep the business operational during a strike. However, they do make it more likely that the use of replacement workers will be aimed specifically at continuing those operations and not for the purposes that run counter to the Canada Labour Code.

It would appear in the studies that have been undertaken that this kind of provision actually seeks to limit the terms of strikes. In fact, if we look over the history we see that measures of this nature, as opposed to measures that the member wants to bring in, has actually reduced the number of days that employers are strikebound. It is in the interest of everyone to ensure that the business gets back to work, that employers are happy and that employees are back in their work setting. That is a reasonable balance. It may not be what the labour unions want or what the employer organizations want. That is crucial because of the fact that we have disagreement on both sides, but the important thing is that both parties can work with this or they can live with this.

Despite some of the claims that we hear from the Bloc, it is far too early for anyone to decide that the replacement workers provision in the code is not working. It is far too early to decide that we need to override this commitment to a consensus driven approach to resolving these issues. It is time for Parliament to allow workers and employers to develop the experience necessary so that they can determine how well these provisions work.

Finally, it is worth putting all of this in perspective. Looking at the departmental performance before 2001-02 for human resource development, we find that 93.7% of collective bargaining disputes under the current Canada Labour Code were settled without any work stoppage whatsoever. We are talking about a small dispute area. We find that the labour program enjoys strong and effective federal mediation and conciliation so that it can step into work with employers and unions in many of Canada's collective bargaining disputes within the federal and private sector.

Furthermore, we find an increase in the use of preventive mediation tools to resolve issues before they reach a difficult stage.

While there will always be high profile collective bargaining disputes, workplaces under federal jurisdiction have a positive environment in which to resolve the issues that matter to workers and employers.

For these reasons I am opposed to this motion.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything like the remarks of the hon. member opposite since the 1950s, at least not often.

It is incredible that someone would make such remarks. I took notes. He spoke of the needs of employers. No argument there. We all agree. Businesses need to be productive, they need to compete and to compete in a global environment. No argument there. However, within a country, wealth is divided through negotiations and leverage.

You say that workers can bargain, but you will not give them the necessary tools. This is akin to sending troops to war without providing them with weapons, telling them, “Off you go; fight the war and get yourself killed”.

Strikes bother people. There is no doubt about it. We must be aware of that, and accept it. The dignity and respect of workers is at stake.

In your remarks, you spoke only of the benefits of businesses. As far as you are concerned, businesses have the right to operate, and they cannot stop. The workers have no rights; they cannot demand respect and bargain. That is what you said. It is shocking to hear such things in this century.

Do I understand correctly that this is the philosophy of his party as a whole, including the Minister of Labour? Is this how the Liberal Party looks at the issue? Are you abandoning the fundamental rights of workers to negotiate a collective agreement to ensure that wealth is distributed fairly and equitably? Is this your party's philosophy? Do your colleagues and the Minister of Labour endorse this philosophy? Was it imposed on you by your—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I always hesitate to interrupt my colleagues, but sooner or later the line has to be drawn.

Comments should always go through the Chair. It can be very useful, especially when one member does not share the view of another. It encourages members to use milder language.

I simply wish to encourage the hon. member for Manicouagan to direct his remarks through the Chair as he finishes his speech.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right, but it is because my colleague over there made me angry and got me going.

I agree with you, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the member took his cue from the labour minister and if the same holds true for all his Liberal colleagues. Do all his colleagues think like him? Do they all believe that companies have rights and workers have none? Does he think that there is no balance of bargaining power between companies and workers?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the decorum of the House, each individual is entitled to his own opinions on legislation. It is not necessarily directed by some other magical force.

I listened to the hon. member speak, saying that I somehow said that workers had no rights whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth. I talked about the importance of the labour movement. In fact, the first thing I said was about the important gains that have been made over the years.

We are not talking about one's right to strike. Clearly one does have the right to strike. We are talking about a small section of that: replacement workers during a strike. We talked about the exemptions in which an employer could use replacement workers during a strike, which is a very tempered thing. Workers cannot be employed when the prime purpose of that is to undermine the bargaining position of the union. It is very respectful of the union and very respectful of the orientation to try to resolve strikes, but the adversarial attitude that the member has hearkens back to that kind of conflict that was prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s.

I have my own kids who are out in the labour force. I can say that they do not think about the aspects of strikes. They talk about employer-employee communication systems and about human resources programs where they sit down and iron out their conflicts in a sensible fashion.

That is really where we have to go as a nation, because the reductions in productivity that are caused by work stoppages affect all of us, not just the workers and the employers but everybody in the country. They reduce our wealth and our access to consumer goods, et cetera. We have to find better ways and tools and I think what is here is a compromise between two absolutes: an employer having the right to replace all the workers and the strikers having the ability to totally close the plant down and make it not operate. We have to get beyond this.

I think the whole debate that the Bloc is bringing here today is really quite moot. It is that quite old labour negotiation talk. We have to move beyond that and get into something more modernistic and more effective for the people of Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the hon. member's comments with regard to Ontario. As an example, since the removal of anti-strike and scab legislation we have seen an increase in terms of conflict between employers and unions. It is up by 2%. As well, we have had increased days of lost production time.

Also, I know he represents the Oshawa-Durham area, with General Motors there, and I would like to get his personal reflections on whether or not he is comfortable with the fact that he could potentially see a General Motors strike at some point in time and have scabs shipped in from Toronto. Is he okay with that in his community?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member uses the concept of scab labour. I have never seen that happen. It does not make for good industrial relations. That is the pure reality of it. We want to talk about the disasters that can happen within labour negotiations, but the fact of the matter is that we have had fairly peaceful labour negotiations in Oshawa and we are all happy for it.

Getting back to the Canada Labour Code, the concept is that there is a balance there. When the member talked about scab labour he was talking about replacement workers who do the jobs of on line workers. That is not what is being addressed here. We are talking about the ability to hire some replacement workers to keep some modicum of operations in the plant but clearly not to undermine the union's bargaining position. It seems pretty clear to me that we are not going to replace the workers for the prime purpose of taking away their advantage of a strike.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the member over there can make such outrageous remarks, claiming that the anti-scab bill hurts production, creates anarchy, and gives extraordinary powers to union workers, and that the latter run the show.

Since 1977, Quebec has had anti-scab legislation. Between 1992 and 2002, there have been labour disputes in Quebec. The average length of disputes governed by the Quebec Labour Code, which includes anti-scab provisions, was 15.9 days, compared to 31.1 days for companies governed by the Canada Labour Code.

In 1993, British Columbia passed a labour code with anti-scab provisions. In 1993, the year the code came into effect, the number of days of work lost because of labour disputes was reduced by 50%. So where is the loss of productivity?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes back to my old days. We can do a lot of things with figures. I would have to examine the figures that the member has given me, but what he did not talk about is the total number of days per capita lost through work stoppages in his province compared to any other province in Canada. The last time I looked it was one of the highest in Canada. He can look at individual wage stoppages and say the stoppages relative to each individual stoppage were for so many days, but what he does not tell us are the total stoppages in the whole of the provinces all of the time. In other words, there are more stoppages as a general feature. I believe that is true. The last time I looked, it was one of the highest in Canada.