House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
Order, please. Debate must be directed through the Chair and not to the minister directly. The Minister of Labour has 30 seconds to reply.
Claudette Bradshaw Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend has forgotten that I had a food bank and that I saw people who had lost their jobs come in. I saw people who had nothing to eat. I am very sympathetic to what the member is saying. However, these employees can go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. There is a process in place to protect them. There is no need to play politics with the plight of people who are hungry.
Jim Gouk Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate today and have listened for a few key words. One that I heard from the Bloc Quebecois was about helping workers. I want to take a look at this from the point of view of helping workers but I first want to get some semantics cleared away and clarify a few things.
When we start talking in terms of workers and unions, who and what exactly are we talking about? Is a union solely the collection of the people who are members of that union or does it have an identify of its own? Is that entity separate from those individual members who make it up?
I sometimes get introduced as the member of Parliament for Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan who belongs to the Canadian Alliance. When that happens I have come up to the podium, thanked the person who introduced me, and said, “I have to make a small correction. I was introduced as belonging to the Canadian Alliance. I do not belong to the Canadian Alliance. I am a member of the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian Alliance is the organization whose policies are most closely aligned with my own. My colleagues in that organization work together with me so I might be far more effective and efficient than I am on my own, so that we may do certain things of commonality for the benefit of all of us”. That is not unlike a union, interestingly enough. However if I belong to anyone I belong to the constituents in my riding, not the party. I do think that is an important difference.
When we start talking in terms of unions we have to remember that a union is an entity that is made up of certain officers and executive, certain ideals and obligations within that executive to the union body itself, and of course its membership.
We spoke to this issue a couple of days ago on a private member's motion, also from the Bloc Quebecois. If we want to talk, in absolute isolation for a moment, to the concept of replacement workers, my response would be that I do not like them. I do not think it is a good system. However it is in isolation. It is such a tiny part of the overall scope of the labour picture that it is almost impossible to put it into context of a piece of legislation or the supply day motion that has been brought forward here in the House.
We have often heard the old adage of reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic . That in essence is what the Bloc is trying to do with the supply day motion it has brought forward. The Bloc members are saying that there are all kinds of problems in labour. They talk about the problems with Miranda. They talk about how long people are out on strike, the suffering of the workers and everything else, and then they come forward with something that touches just a tiny bit of the problem, and I do mean tiny. Taken by itself, they can make a case where in a specific example it has some catastrophic impact, but in the grand scheme of things it is a very tiny portion.
Maybe where to start is with the history of the trade union movement. Back in the 1800s in North America, primarily in the United States, we had things that were scenes right out of Dante's Inferno . We had mill owners who employed people in unbelievable conditions, unsafe and unhealthy, with wages that barely allowed them to buy table scraps and that doomed them to an early death, if indeed an accident in the mill did not do it before. If something happened to them there was nothing for the families. There was back-breaking labour, no time off and no benefits. It was horrible. Those were bad employers. They were oppressive.
Unions started to organize. In those days, union leaders needed incredibly thick skulls, not thick skins as perhaps they would need today. They needed thick skulls because there would be strikebreakers on both sides.
The strikebreakers from the company were hired thugs who would go out with baseball bats, crowbars and everything else to literally beat striking workers into submission. Therefore the person who was the union leader had to be just as tough as those to fight back, to try to deal with it that way. It was a brute force confrontation.
Many people were hurt, maimed, killed or blackballed. It was a horrible time. It was a horrible page in North American history and for history throughout the world where these types of confrontations took place.
Canada certainly was not isolated from this. I am talking about the 1800s. Very early on in the 20th century, right in Atlantic Canada in, I believe, Nova Scotia, there were laws on the books where workers could actually be put in jail just for asking for a raise. As the old cigarette commercial says, we have come a long way but we still do not have a perfect system. One of the reasons we do not have a perfect system is that some parts of the system have evolved and unfortunately some parts of it have not.
Nothing strikes me with more irony than when I hear of a strike taking place, not at Noranda, not at some big company, not at Canada Post or the ports but in fact in a union administrative office where the employer is the union and the workers are on strike because they cannot negotiate with their employer, the union, in a manner in which unions castigate the other employers for not being fair to their workers. It is, one has to admit, very ironic.
There is a growing complexity in terms of the unions themselves and in terms of work issues in this country. One of the things that has changed, part of the evolution of the union movement, is the fact that at one time a long way back the union workers were, by and large, uneducated and unskilled.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just in the hall here. We are speaking about an important issue and we do not have a single member from the government here.
SupplyGovernment Orders
An hon. member
You're not allowed to comment on whether people are here or not here.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
We will resume debate. The hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
Jim Gouk Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the complexity and whole nature of unions have changed tremendously. The point I will make goes back a long way and I do not want anybody to misunderstand it. It goes right back to the very origins of the trade union movement.
We found by and large that union workers did not have access to education or training and were often in the workforce at the age of 12 or 13. They counted on the union leader who hopefully had some education and some training, and the thick skull and brawny arm which was necessary in those early days, to look after them. These were young men who had neither the education or training, or anything else to collectively or individually deal with an oppressive company. It is understandable that unions were extremely necessary by the nature of how employers operated in those days.
Union workers in the 21st century have not only completed their high school education, but in many cases have completed university and sometimes have more than one degree. They also have a variety of training. Many of them operate their own successful businesses on the side. It is a different nature of person entirely. Consequently, the leadership needs to change too. In some cases there is very enlightened leadership in trade union movements, but some still operate under the old premise of might is right and one union had better have more might than the other. Some unions like to operate from a strong arm point of view which shows a lack of growth and a lack of evolution inside the union movement itself.
Originally when strikes took place they were primarily an economic tug of war between an employer and an employee or a group of employees. It was a question of how long the two sides could do without money. In other words, who would blink first. The employer and employee or group of employees primarily suffered from the damage. For example, if it involved a mill in a mill town there obviously would be some collateral damage. The town itself would suffer because no money would be available while this would be going on. Primarily it would be very isolated.
The most simple example I could give the House would be to pick on a bakery where workers would feel that they should have a higher wage. If they did not get the higher wage they would go on strike. Without the employees the bakery would not have any bread to sell so therefore it would have no revenue. People in the community would go somewhere else to get their bread or they would bake their own or even do without. This is an example of the economic tug of war between an employer and an employee. That has changed immensely.
I used an example the other night where under our current system a handful of longshoremen went out on strike in the port of Vancouver. As a direct result of that, a farmer and his family in Manitoba, thousands of miles away, could possibly end up losing their farm.
There is a difference in complexity and a difference in the nature of the impact of strikes and lockouts now. There is a tremendous national impact. That is something that must be addressed. It is not addressed by shuffling the chairs on the Titanic and not by taking a little portion that has some clear impact in certain unique circumstances and ignoring all the other things that are wrong with the system that need to be looked at and taken into consideration.
Bloc Québécois members spoke about labour relations this morning. I was making notes of certain key things that they said. I would like to talk for a moment about labour relations. There are exceptions to everything, but primarily labour relations in collective bargaining are confrontational.
I am the official opposition critic for public works and government services which includes Canada Post. I worked very closely with both sides when Canada Post went on its fourth national strike, and I have never seen worse labour relations in my life than what I saw between Canada Post and its workers at that time. It was absolutely unbelievable. Under those kinds of conditions it would be a shock if they actually sat down and simply negotiated something. The premise that they started from was so far out that it just could not be done.
There are other problems. I recall when I was a city councillor and was asked questions by a number of school teachers inside my community because I was involved quite a bit with the school board. They were in a labour dispute with the B.C. government and they wanted me to address them because they wanted to ask me some questions. The very first question I was asked was whether I would support the teacher's right to strike. I replied that I would give them a real honest answer provided that they listened to the entire reply.
My answer was that I did not believe that the teachers should have the right to strike and I used the scenario that I just did with the bakery. I said that in this case the economic tug of war or the battle was not between them and the employer. In theory and on paper it was, but the person who got hurt was not the employer. Children were counting on them to educate them in school. They had an economic battle with their employer and the collateral damage would affect all the children who were counting on them for an education. I also used a number of other scenarios.
I want to make one particular point that I told the teachers in this case because this is an example of how there are so many other factors that we must take into consideration. I addressed the teachers by asking them to imagine the minister of education coming out before the microphones and all the media, wringing his hands in anguish and saying that everything was being done to get them back to the bargaining table to resolve this. He would say, “We will bend over backwards. We will do almost anything. We want the children back in school”. Then the lights would go out, the microphones would go dead, and the minister would walk back into the cabinet room and say, “Okay, folks, how do we piss them off enough to keep them out another month so we can resolve a lot of our budget problems?” The teachers would get the flak for not educating the children. The employer would be in the reverse of the normal economic tug of war. The employer would actually be saving money. There are all kinds of issues that we must look at in terms of what happens in labour disputes.
Back to the situation with Canada Post. One of the things that I explained to both Canada Post and the union was the impact of what they were doing. I said that when union members go on strike, Canada Post shuts down. The union wants better wages, guarantees that no one will be laid off, and it wants part time people being made full time. Yet the nature of it going on strike, withdrawing its services, and consequently Canada Post not providing postal services would force people in the public to start considering alternatives in order to get their mail, cheques, information, and everything else delivered.
In this electronic age it is getting easier to do that and a whole lot of people would suddenly start finding alternatives to Canada Post during a strike. When the strike is finally over, many people find that it was suitable enough and non-disruptive enough that they do not go back to use Canada Pose. Canada Post gets back into business with less business. As a result it would need less workers, so the very reason that the union went on strike in some cases would cause union workers to lose the very things that they were fighting for. That is something that must be taken into consideration as well.
Let me talk about essential services. We recognize that certain services should not or cannot have the right to strike, such as policemen or firemen. There must be a provision for policing, even in the event of a dispute between police officers and their employer, between firemen and their employer. We recognize that and so do they. They are good, honourable people, and accept and recognize that. There are people like that and it is becoming more widespread all the time.
Then there are transportation services. Marine Atlantic is a good example right now. Its hearing has not started yet but is coming up. It may withdraw its services which will essentially shut down the ferry between Newfoundland and the mainland. It is obviously a pretty essential service.
These things exist and where they exist we must have something that says that this is how we will settle for these people. They should not be penalized because they are important. We must come up with something that is fair, that recognizes they cannot withdraw their services, and yet they must be treated fairly. We need to work on that because therein lies the real answer to labour problems in the country. If we were to come up with something that is fair for these people, and we had better, then why would it not apply to everyone? Why would we allow all the other types of damages that I have talked about instead of resolving the disputes that we have now?
This is about helping workers. However, we must recognize that it is about helping workers in a new economy, in a new concept of how the country works. Bloc members have taken a kernel of a good idea, just a kernel, but we need something much broader. I would ask them to withdraw their supply day motion, which has good intentions, and come back with it again but in a much broader context. We cannot micro manage a system that is highly complex, but instead we must find a new way for better union labour harmony in the country for the benefit of all Canadians.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, on May 1 it is my privilege to rise and talk about this important issue. I commend the Bloc for putting the motion forward. It is important to discuss this in the House and to take it to committee to study it further. I believe it will improve the working conditions of not only the workers of this nation but it will also provide stability for employment in the country by setting out some pragmatic rules that will be very beneficial to other provinces that currently do not have strike breaking legislation.
To start off my comments I want to touch upon the history of Canada and the labour union.
In 1872 Sir John A. Macdonald's government introduced a Trade Unions Act and at that time many nations across the globe were going through industrialized revolutions. There was great strife and concern and a number of different conflicts. At that time workers in towns and cities across the globe were struggling for their rights, not only for themselves but for their families. They often dealt with even more complex issues then. While the issues of child labour, health and safety and others were different back then, they are also very relevant today because some of those issues still persist as our technology and our industries change.
Canada was five years old when that act was created. Therefore we have to recognize that having progressive and important legislation regarding the unions and the trade movement has been something of our history and part of making the foundations of our country. In my opinion it has made us the most successful nation in the world. The movement at that time was pressing for a nine hour workday and we wanted to reduce the hours. There were a number of different issues that they had to face, including organized strikes against media and other industry.
It is important to note that and it brings us to a period of time of 1909 when there were a number of different conflicts. At Fort William freight handlers were on strike against CPR and gun battles actually ensued. Despite having that legislation in place, there was still conflict.
In 1919 there were over 400 strikes in Canada, three of them were the famous Winnipeg, Amherst, Nova Scotia and Toronto general strikes, so it sets out a pattern. Troops where brought in in the 1923 Cape Breton mine and steelworkers strike.
As we go through Canadian history, in 1946 some 2,700 Hamilton workers were on strike and replacement workers were brought in. One witness reported that 300 club-wielding men attacked picketers, dozens injured on both sides.
It is important to note that history because it can return and it did return in my home province of Ontario. Prior to the current Tory government, under Mike Harris originally and now Ernie Eves, we had peaceful labour relations under the NDP government which introduced legislation to prevent scabs from coming into the workplace. Since that time we have witnessed the repealing of that law and it has had a detrimental impact on our province.
I want to touch on that because I believe this movement could improve things significantly. We need to learn the lessons from what has happened in Ontario since the removal of that law. Quebec and British Columbia still have it and other provinces are discussing it. It would be an important role for the federal government to participate in it.
Before Bill 40 was passed, the Conservatives decided they were against it. When their predictions of disaster did not come true, they showed no interest in the facts.
Here is the record of Bill 40 which took effect in 1993, under the Bob Rae government. A total of 220,000 new jobs were created in 1993 and 1994, making it clear that Bill 40 was not a job killer. In fact we had a great deal of automotive growth at that time and it was important for the current economy. For two years new private sector investment in Ontario was $53 billion and for highly unionized manufacturing sector there was $8.8 billion in new private sector investment in 1994 alone, the most for one year in the history of the province of Ontario.
Predictions that Bill 40 would produce more strikes and ballooning labour demands proved false. In 1993 there were 371,000 person days lost due to work stoppages in Ontario, the lowest number on record. In 1994 it was the third lowest record for that year. There was some definite improvements and some stability that ensued.
Wage settlements have generally tracked the rate of inflation. Average wage increases in the agreements in 1994 were under 1%. There was stability again because of the rules set in place and that was because of the legislation.
When Bill 40 was in, there were 25,000 employees and 777 newly certified bargaining units in 1993 and 27,000 workers and 756 units in 1994, for a total of 51,000 units for the full two years.
The use of replacement workers in Ontario disputes has always been rare. As expected, the ban had no a major effect. It may have contributed to ending the work stoppage by major league baseball players and in bringing about a settlement that ended the lockout of major league umpires because it was an issue with which they had to deal.
Since that time we have lost that. We have had some tragic incidences in Ontario and close to my hometown in Chatham where Navistar is located. Previously workers were protected against scabs being brought in and taking on their jobs. What happened was Navistar decided it would use replacement scab workers for those jobs. That came after a long history of the union being very involved in the community and in the company. Despite that, Navistar brought in the scabs because it now had that opportunity.
At that time Navistar hired professional security people, as it called them, but they were just nothing more than organized thugs. They were decked out in black equipment, goggles, often sunglasses. They intimidated the workers and took pictures of them on the line. They went even further than that.
At one demonstration the union members finally decided they had to stop the scabs from coming in, they had to draw a line in the sand. Their families needed them to be employed. They had fought for it and had collectively bargained for it. They took a front to stop this from happening.
What happened was the security people ended up hurting Don Milner, a gentleman from our community. He was run over by one of the security vans. That happened off site, kilometres away from the actual Navistar plant. If Bill 40 had not been taken away, that would not have happened. Mr. Milner is still recovering today. He will never be the same because of the situation that he endured. It set an unfortunate precedent.
It sets up a situation that allows employers to use this as a tool for bargaining and also to use it as a tool to break people. It leads to intimidation and to the elimination of progressive employment, which is so important.
Strikes are never flippant acts. They come about because people have decided over a period of time that they need to fight for their rights. It is not easy to go on strike. It never is. People make it seem that workers go on strike to rebel. Workers go on strike because they think they are right.
The unions, as well as the workers, think very carefully about what it will mean to their families and their community, and I mean the community not just in the sense of their purchasing power because of their employment but also because of their significant contributions to organizations like the United Way and other groups. When there is a strike, it has a big impact. That is addressed when they talk about whether they should strike.
If they decide to strike, it is done democratically. People cast ballots to decide, based upon their information and their circumstances and what they feel is best for themselves and the collective. It is important to note that because a democratic process is used to decide whether they should walk off the job. That is one of the best and most powerful tools that has implemented social change. It is involved in a number of different things, not just about wages.
We have seen many unions walk off the job for health and safety reasons, whether it be the chemicals they must use, or the hours of work, or the way they are being treated. It may be hiring practices. All those different things can precipitate people leaving the workplace.
The one way that we can undermine getting people together is allowing scabs to come in. That divides the community because sometimes in situations where communities have high unemployment rates, people feel they have no other option. It pits brother against brother and sister against sister, and that is not healthy. It is very temporary but it leaves a lasting mark on Canadians and also on their communities.
That is one reason why we support this motion. We believe that the Bloc has got it right. I think that we need to move forward in bringing this to committee so that we can have a good discussion about it.
I know the minister was concerned about consensus and about not having the proper buy-in from both parties. That can be looked at and can be addressed at committee level. It is worth a try to get there. Witnesses can come forward and provide the testimony, and perhaps we might see some movement there. It is not something that is foreign to this country. It is happening in Quebec and in British Columbia. It used to happen in Ontario. There is a precedent here. It happens in other nations.
One of the strike lockout issues that becomes very imperative for a company and the workers is what will happen in times of uncertainty about the company, whether it will lose profits, whether they will undermine their ability to sustain themselves, their future, all those different things. It is important to note that people take that into consideration.
Nobody goes on strike to try to lose their job permanently. Workers go on strike as a last resort. They do it because the terms and conditions of employment have challenged them enough and their brothers and sisters in the plant or in the organization, wherever it might be, to consider going off the job. It is not taken lightly.
Companies that are faced with this, if they are going to throw in labour at the last moment, and we have seen this happen in different areas, it has to be trained. The company has to produce the same type of product. The company will not have as high a level of productivity. It will have issues there. It is not a complete recovery of the product either.
What it does do is it distances the company and the organization to provide buying time that leads to conflict. This is the real problem. It builds to a culmination of conflict. This conflict can be avoided. It does not take a genius to figure out that conflict, like we saw in Navistar, needs to be avoided.
Companies are becoming quite smart in some respects on how they deal with this by hiring so-called security professionals. These people receive very little training. However they do receive specific mandates to do things that involve intimidation of our citizens. Sometimes they are brought in from other communities and they often do that.
It is ironic that some of these companies are not even Canadian. They hire individuals here to promote their work. That has to stop. I believe there should be investigation into some of the practices of some of the security companies and what they do on these picket lines. This is a reason why I believe the motion is so important.
We in the New Democratic Party have been calling for this for a long time. As well, we believe there is other progressive legislation that can happen in the House of Commons. We have a collective group, the CEP, where we have employees working. We have a member from Halifax who introduced that bill. We believe it is important for people to have the right to organize. If people can organize everywhere else in this nation, they should be allowed to do it in these halls. We believe this is worthy of support.
We in the New Democratic Party are very proud to support this effort. We believe the Bloc has done a good job. More important, we need to focus on the fact that this brings us to further discussion about this. This could bring about the consensus which the minister wants. Therefore, it is worthy of pursuit in these halls.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague on his speech and thank him for the support that his party will give to the bill introduced by my colleague from Laurentides.
I have two questions for my colleague. First, how does he explain the fact that this is not the first time that the Bloc Quebecois—and no doubt also the New Democratic Party—is introducing anti-scab legislation? In 1990, it seemed that my colleague from Richelieu introduced a similar bill. This has happened three or four times in the Bloc's history, since we have been here in large numbers, since 1993.
Consequently, I would like to ask my colleague how he can explain that, since 1993 or thereabouts, the Liberal government and the federal administration has not made any commitment and has not realized that such legislation would simply make good sense in terms of power balance.
My second question is, what does he think of the minister's reasoning when she says that, despite everything, in Canada, parties end up agreeing and the important thing is to have a fair balance of power between both parties?
In Quebec—and no doubt also in Canada—we have labour disputes that go on forever because of problems with the balance of power. I am thinking of Vidéotron, Cargill, Radio-Nord. In light of these disputes, what does he think about this kind of comment by the minister?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. First, I just believe it is political will. It is quite correct that we have discussed this issue before in the House of Commons. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have brought forth many motions, some actually coming close to being passed.
It is political will. It is about doing the right thing. We have seen the government not taking a focus on issues before. For example, for Kyoto it took several years for the government to even decide it was actually going to create a plan and at the last minute we had to deal with it.
This is an issue right here that we can start to deal with. We know for a fact that we see some unrest happening. We see the benefits of the lost days in Quebec because of its legislation; we see the benefits of it right there. We do not need any more proof. It is right there and it is political will that will pull this thing through.
I cannot explain this. I guess at the end of the day we have to make a decision about integrity and where we stand on an issue. That is why they are kind of waffling back and forth in terms of their support. I believe that is why we are not going to see some members come over at this time: because they do not want to make a hard decision.
At the same time it ties into the second question about the balance of power. Some people believe that the workers of this country have the balance of power. That is not necessarily true. In fact, it is not true. People have to fight for that in collective agreements. It is done through a history of relationships, and that gives them the right, I believe, to be able to protect them from other people who want to take them away after that history. That is why this should go forward.
Once again, the important thing to note is that what we are talking about here is bringing it to the committee level to talk about it some more. Why can that not happen? Why someone would not want to vote on that, I do not understand.
Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Bloc opposition day motion, the motion which asks this House to “recognize the urgency of amending the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of strikebreakers”.
I have spent 22 years in the labour movement. One of the hardest things when we go on strike is to have strikebreakers. That is an ugly word, but it means having employees replaced by other people to do the jobs employees should be doing. Of course it sets up an unfair balance in the workplace, especially when the time comes to finalize negotiations.
Let me state very clearly from the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada certainly feels that unions on the whole play a very important role in the country in assuring that the equality of employees is maintained and upheld and as such play an important role in helping to preserve an important part of our country.
However, the PC Party recognizes that the motion attempts to address a very serious matter yet in doing so leaves much open to interpretation and provides little in the area of specifics.
The big thing we have to realize is that we as a body and as government members should never encourage replacement workers, strikebreakers, scabs or whatever we want to call them, to take over from regular employees who are providing serious labour and a serious employer-employee relationship. It has a major impact on the way business is done. If employees and employers are not happy together, production goes down and when production goes down everyone loses. The company will probably lose money and benefits are lost. The company ends up failing, closes up the shop and employees are unemployed as a result. If there were legislation to ensure that there were no strikebreakers allowed, then I firmly believe, from my past experience, that we would see employers having to negotiate fairly. If they do negotiate fairly, they of course I think they will come to a resolution very quickly.
It is very hard sometimes when both parties are apart, but all this does is cause tempers to flare: People get frustrated when replacement workers go in to basically do their jobs. That does not resolve anything. It just causes bad feelings and that is when we get trouble on the picket line. The key is not to cause trouble on the picket line. Picket line trouble comes when other people are in there doing the jobs the employees should be doing. Employers are then of course targeted to make sure that they get the message. We cannot blame the union people and we cannot blame the workers who on strike, because they are fighting for their survival.
In every strike there is an important lesson to be learned on both sides, the employer's and the employees'. In most cases, if not all, solidarity is particularly important in disputes involving workers at the bottom of the jobs and the industries are notoriously difficult to unionized workers. Solidarity within the labour movement when there are strikebreakers involved is stronger than anything we will ever see. People will not tolerate that. People will not tolerate having their livelihood sucked away. When the strikebreakers go in, all of a sudden war breaks out on the picket line. When war takes place on the picket line, someone gets hurt or injured. Tempers flare for one reason or another, and someone could die because we did not do our job to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process to make sure that union and management provide a certain level of negotiations, and that each individual has the right to make sure they get a good agreement.
Of course sometimes it is the same thing when people are not unionized. There are a lot of groups who are not unionized and sometimes they walk out. As a result, people get threatened. They basically are told, “If you threaten to go into the union or if you threaten to leave work or protest like you doing, we are going to replace you. We are going to fire you”. There should be protection for these people, too, but for some reason or another we do not do that, and as a result I think the system fails.
Of course we can all sit down and look at what is being said. I think it is very important that this go to committee. I think it is very important that we not be afraid to discuss this issue. For some reason or another, we at times do not want to talk about situations like those we are hearing about in the House today. There is nothing wrong with sending this to committee so that we can sit down and look at the pros and cons of why and what we are doing. We are supposed to be here to try to make life much easier for people, but if we allow strikebreakers to exist in our society today, then of course we fail the people we are supposed to represent.
It goes without saying that employers, both small and large, but in most cases small, are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. A good majority of rural employment is due to small businesses that operate in ways that make them the focal points of their communities. The local sports store, the local shoemaker and the local corner store in small communities not only keep the communities going but they also provide a source of employment to the residents, to their families and to the local economy.
That being said, in most cases these unions can have a very damaging effect at times, but at the same time they can have a positive effect because then of course there is unity. People might say that this is no good, but I firmly believe that if people have unionized workplaces, if people have that action to take against an employer, what we see are better relationships and stronger communities. Communities will exist far beyond if people can work in an environment that is satisfactory to everyone.
If areas of the country allow certain things like strikebreakers, all we have is total chaos in the system. Communities lose, employees lose and companies lose, because the key is to make sure there is a good atmosphere so that employers, employees and the community work together to make sure that everyone survives.
It is very important, as I said before, that we not be afraid to move forward. The hardest thing to do is sit back and let certain things happen and say that people deserve this or that. The time has come when we as politicians should stand up and be counted to make sure that we send the correct message, which is that if people are in a unionized field or a non-unionized field, there is a level that should be maintained. People have to live and have respectable wages. People have to make sure that if there is a dispute there is a mechanism put in place to make sure they can have free and open negotiations.
But if all of a sudden the company can bring in strikebreakers, then of course it will do nothing to make sure that the employees are taken care of. It could cause longer strikes as a result, and it does nothing for the economy. It is very important that we move in the direction of going to second reading so that people can have the ability to make sure that their rights are being freely done and freely heard about. It is very important that we as government send a message that we will not tolerate strikebreakers.
I will close by saying that I have never had the opportunity, as a unionist for 22 years, of being faced with strikebreakers, but I will say right now that I was on the picket lines a couple of times in those 22 years. The worst case scenario is to have people going across the picket line to do one's job and just going in there to aggravate. We have been fortunate over the years that we did not experience it, because we had legislation in place that basically gave us the right to negotiate fairly and to have a settlement so that we as a group could feel that we had been heard and our problems had been resolved.
If we ended up having strikebreakers, we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans, would not tolerate it. We are the type of people who stand up for our rights and who fight to our last breath. If it is trouble people want, it is trouble they will get. All that strikebreakers do is bring discontentment to the picket line and discontentment throughout the whole process.
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to my friend's speech. I want to ask him a question on the issue of right to work legislation.
A few years ago a group did a very interesting analysis. It looked at states in the U.S. and compared those states that had right to work legislation and those that did not. What it found was that in those states where right to work legislation did occur a couple of interesting things happened. One was that the income in those states that had right to work legislation was significantly higher, in the order of $3,000 plus per year per worker.
The other interesting thing it found was that the rate of employment was also higher when one compared those states that had right to work legislation to those that did not.
In the interest of workers, in the interest of employment and in the interest of getting the maximum amount of money for workers in Canada, would the member support right to work legislation in Canada?
Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem Canada has had over the years is that we are always looking at the United States. The United States is not an area we should be looking at for any guidelines for Canada. As far as I am concerned, looking at U.S. guidelines for Canada is what has put this country in trouble.
Everyone has the right to work and of course if legislation were brought forward we would have to look at it to see how it would help our Canadian workers. However I will not answer the question yes or no because I would need more details.
As I said before, we are Canada. We should build our own parameters and our own guidelines for our country to satisfy our own workers and the companies we represent.
We should not be looking at the United States. The United States does not have good legislation when it comes to certain things in its country. We can just look at health care. Canada has the best health care in the world and the U.S. does not. As a result of that we hear all these horror stories.
If something like that were brought forward it would be interesting to see if it would be positive for Canada. As it stands right now, it will take a lot more detail and discussion to determine the pros and cons. If the hon. member has more information I would have no trouble looking it over and getting back to him with a suitable answer at another time.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have just come in from outside where there are several hundred Vidéotron protesters, who endured a ten-month dispute. There are also Radio-Nord protesters, who have been in a labour dispute for several months now. As well, there are protesters from Cargill who have been in a labour dispute for over three years. There are other protesters too. I want to congratulate them for having the courage to come here, despite the bad weather. They all came to show their support for the Radio-Nord employees who are now in a dispute. They also came to show their support for my anti-scab bill.
I would like to ask the hon. member, who seems to support this bill, if there are businesses in his riding under federal jurisdiction and if he is experiencing disputes similar to those in Quebec both past and present, because there is still no anti-scab legislation.
Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador always rally together to make sure their voices are heard. The way they have done that is by always forming a union. It is probably not a dissimilar situation to what we find in Quebec.
However I have never had the experience of knowing a company that was on strike that brought in strikebreakers. I think the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are different from everyone else in the country. We understand that certain things should not happen. However, for some reason or other, when there are strikes in some provinces they only care about getting them settled.
I think the employers in Newfoundland and Labrador are more sensitive to the needs of the people and our people are really sensitive to the needs of employers. Most important, we try to do things differently to make sure there is a process in place so we do not have to entertain strikebreakers. I know that in some parts of the country that happens and it is unfortunate. As a result , as the hon. member has said, it causes walkouts that are probably prolonged for longer periods of time, which does nothing for the company, nothing for the morale of the employers and employees, and nothing for the economy of the country.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, since the province of Ontario dumped anti-scab legislation we have seen an increase in actual strikes and labour issues. Would the hon. member agree that Ontario should go back to the anti-scab legislation that protected its workers before and prevented situations like Navistar, where Don Milner was run over by a security firm that was trying to bring scabs into that facility?
Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Mr. Speaker, I know there was a fair amount of controversy in Ontario when the NDP government brought in some good legislation with regard to scabs. I think the labour movement across the country rejoiced in the fact that they had a premier that would do something for employees, as well as employers, because they work together.
As far as I am concerned I firmly believe Canada should make it quite clear to all employers across the country that it will not tolerate replacement workers taking the jobs of people who are on strike. If that were to happen, it would send a clear message to all the countries in the world that, yes, we may have disputes in our workplaces but we have put a mechanism in place that will resolve the situation fairly and equitably, not only for the employer but for employees, so we can do great business in the country and allow it will prosper.
Canada will prosper if we have a situation where everyone is happy in the workplace. Yes, differences of opinion happen because we all have different ways of doing things, but I think Canada would be a better country if all provinces followed suit and established anti-scab legislation that would prevent replacement workers.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague for Manicouagan. I also want to congratulate my hon. colleague for Laurentides on her initiative. This initiative deserves recognition. This member is the labour critic, and she regularly tells the caucus how important this bill is.
There are a few things worth noting. In particular, the Labour Code of Quebec has contained anti-scab provisions since 1977. I must admit that this had ensured some measure of social harmony in labour relations, and this is important.
The straw that broke the camel's back in Quebec, and in fact led to these new anti-scab provisions, was the United Aircraft dispute in 1977. People were very dismayed by this situation.
I remember when security guards were systematically shooting at striking United Aircraft personnel. The government at the time, a Parti Quebecois government, decided to do things differently, as it did time and again. In order to create social harmony, the government implemented this anti-scab legislation.
Since then, when it comes to labour peace in every business governed by the Quebec Labour Code, things are not absolutely perfect. However, we certainly have data showing how important such a measure is.
I have here the average number of working days lost in Quebec since 1977. Here is the first number. In 1976, before the new measures came into force, 39.4 working days were lost due to labour disputes.
Right after the introduction of the new measures—in 1979—the number of lost working days dropped to 32.8. In 2001, it was 27.4.
There is absolutely no doubt that this new measure introduced in 1977 brought labour peace and a certain civility in labour relations, resulting in a lot fewer working days lost due to disputes.
Here are some more numbers that are revealing. The average number of working days lost between 1992 and 2002, under the Quebec Labour Code, was 15.9; under the Canada Labour Code, it was around 31.1 days. So under the Canada Labour Code, 95% more days were lost. We attribute this to the lack of anti-scab measures.
Still during the same period of time, between 1992 and 2002, under the Quebec Labour Code, the number of days lost per 1,000 employees was 121.3 , whereas under the Canada Labour Code it was 266, or 119% more.
So we can see that it would be good for labour relations to include similar measures in the Canada Labour Code. We know there are drawn-out disputes in businesses governed by the Canada Labour Code. We gave some examples earlier. At Vidéotron, the dispute lasted over one year. Another very tough dispute is ongoing at Sécur. Workers have been locked out at Cargill, and they have been trying to negotiate for three years. Radio-Nord is currently regulated by the federal code—as is the whole sector of telecommunications—and it is also on strike.
The dynamics must be understood. One has to have been on a picket line—as I often was since I am a former unionist—to know how high tensions are in a dispute when scabs are brought in to replace strikers.
Often, there is a strong police presence and these people are frequently driven to work in armoured vehicles. We can understand why things turn bad sometimes.
In this regard, there are also many other advantages. There is the reduction in violence and picket lines, and I have already talked about that. We can also say that it favours a better balance of bargaining power with employers. At the present time, section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code prohibits the use of scabs to undermine a trade union's credibility.
This means, for example, that pursuant to the Canada Labour Code, an employer cannot say: “I will lock you out. I do not want to negotiate anymore and I will hire scabs”. That is not legal according to the Canada Labour Code.
But employers are more cunning than that. They sit down at the bargaining table and play for time. No progress is made. They want to show that they are bargaining in good faith, when in fact the opposite is true. In the meantime, the scabs are inside the premises and they are working.
This undercuts the unions and leaves those who are bargaining with a Sword of Damocles over their head. It upsets the entire process.
There also seems to be a very broad consensus among labour unions. The CSN, the FTQ and the steelworkers, including those in Quebec, are reported to be quite satisfied with the Quebec code but very dissatisfied with the provisions of the Canadian code.
Such an initiative would bring tremendous benefits and I do hope that my colleagues in the House of Commons will vote in favour of this proposal, even if from what we have seen so far the government, the Liberal Party, does not really support the workers. Just look at what they have done with the employment insurance fund.
I am also thinking about the back-to-work legislation the government has passed. Not only can they enforce the rather vague provisions of the Canadian code to keep workers out on the picket line while scabs are inside working, but, in specific cases, they can also pass special legislation to force employees back to work.
From the way it has behaved in the last 10 years, I think the Liberal Party will probably be against this proposal. I still call on the government members to show their social conscience and really reflect on the significant impact this proposal could have on the labour peace we would all like to see.
As for the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, judging by everything I have seen of them over the past 10 years, it is clear that they will object to this bill. If they thought about it, however, they would see that this bill is important for labour peace.
Labour peace is extremely important to any business. It has a direct impact on increased productivity. If people can work fully confident that there is no sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, as I have already said, they will feel more connected to their work and productivity will increase.
So we can see that the bill before us has a great deal of merit. The Bloc Quebecois has been trying to get it passed for a long time. For example, one of my former colleagues, Mr. St-Laurent, when he was the member for Manicouagan, was responsible for a bill or a motion in the same vein.
This has an important effect on the national economy. We must not go back to the caveman days, giving employers the upper hand and leaving the ordinary union member powerless. This therefore has a direct impact on the bargaining climate and also cannot help but have a direct impact on the outcome when negotiations start to go sour and drag on forever.
What is the point in the employer's negotiating quickly if he can use people within his business, probably for less money, and just let the unionized workers cool their heels on the picket line?
This created a lot of controversy in Quebec prior to 1977 and was in fact what prompted Quebec to change its labour code so that these people could be covered and strike breakers could no longer be used.
This happened in British Columbia as well, and we have the figures from that province. The number of days lost to strikes and lock-outs is really dropping, and continues to do so, to the benefit of companies and their employees .
I will be supporting this bill with great enthusiasm. My congratulations to my colleague, and I want her to know that in Quebec even employers agree with this type of measure because it has improved productivity.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean for another very clear speech.
I would like to ask him how he explains the fact that, despite all the bills that have been introduced in the House, at least since 1990, both by the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, this government and its predecessors never showed any concern about this gaping hole in the Canada Labour Code, which allows the use of replacement workers and which I think completely upsets the balance of bargaining power.
My second question would be this. I do not know if he heard the minister this morning, but she almost praises—either because she is acting in bad faith or because she is naive, I do not know—the sort of consensus that supposedly exists in Canada in favour of the status quo, claiming that there is indeed a balance of bargaining power with regard to labour relations in Canada, even during a strike, even with—she apparently admitted it in the House—the use of replacement workers.
I would like my colleague to explain how the minister can say that there is indeed a real balance of bargaining power during strikes, even when scabs show up.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his two excellent questions.
First, why has the government done so little? Why was nothing done before 1990, or more fairly, since the Liberal Party took office? I referred to this earlier, and this allows me to delve further into the subject.
With all due respect to my Liberal colleagues, I find that the Liberal government is not very friendly to workers. The fact that it constantly steals from the employment insurance fund is another example of this. The fact that it passed special legislation forcing some workers back to work after disputes that had not lasted long at all is yet another sign that this government is not friendly to workers. Also, the fact that it opposes new anti-scab measures, as it very well may do, is further proof.
I do not see how workers today, regardless of where they live in Canada, could feel that they are well represented by this government. I think that workers need to look elsewhere. In Quebec, anyway, thanks to the efforts of my colleagues, we have demonstrated very clearly that we are a party that understands workers, that we are not ashamed of our roots and do not renounce them.
As for the minister who says that there is consensus, I do not know where she got this idea. I meet regularly with people from the CSN, the FTQ and the steelworkers' union in Quebec and everyone says that the Canada Labour Code is flawed and needs fixing. This may just be a sign that the minister is not listening, or else she is only listening to some of the people, which is even worse. She is listening to employers, but not workers.
I would like to remind workers that there are more of them than there are employers. When the time comes to make a political choice, they need to remember that in the House, the real advocates when it comes to conditions that affect workers are the members of the Bloc Quebecois. This is certainly the case in Quebec, and I think that we are setting an example for the rest of Canada. Many Canadian workers appreciate the Bloc Quebecois' measures to support them. I hope they remember this during the next election, which may be quite soon, after all.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, I coommend my colleague for his speech and for his involvement at the union level. He has been very active in collective bargaining for many years. He therefore has vast experience in that area.
I have a question for him. As we know, the dispute at Radio Nord has been going on for six months already. Could he tell us, according to what he knows and to what he has seen, what can happen when a dispute lasts as long as this one has and when the employer decides to withdraw from the bargaining table, because there is no anti-scab legislation and because he can do whatever he wants? Has the member ever seen such a dispute, and how does he perceive that?
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I did work for a year in the field of labour relations. I can tell her that the current provisions of the Canadian Labour Code only prolong disputes. There is no labour peace, and that prolongs disputes. Radio-Nord is the best example of that.
I was saying earlier that the only thing that is to be found in section 94 of the Canadian Code at present is that one should not undermine the union's credibility. If you do not undermine the union's credibility, you have no right to hire strikebreakers.
The employer often drags things out at the bargaining table. This allows him to continue to operate, to prolong the dispute actually, while people stay out on the streets for months and years.
I think that we really have to think about strengthening the current provisions. I believe that this is exactly what the bill introduced by my colleague intends. With this bill, we will restore labour peace and harmonious labour relations, which will have a positive impact both on workers and on overall productivity in companies that come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.
Ghislain Fournier Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Laurentides, who has been working steadfastly for the dignity and respect of workers. I would say that Canadians are lucky to have the Bloc Quebecois looking out, in this House, for the interests of all workers, and not only those of workers in Quebec . With the anti-strikebreaking legislation, we are looking out for workers throughout Canada, we are looking out for all Canadians.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important issue, and one that I care a great deal about. On this great May 1, International Workers Day, as a parliamentarian, I am pleased to see us take one more step to improve the well-being of workers.
In an advanced society such as ours, in human and technological terms, anti-strikebreaking legislation is a necessity . This debate on labour relations during a dispute is of the utmost importance to many workers in my riding, and throughout the country. Work is the salt of society; workers are its beacons.
In the minds of every citizen, the right to strike means having a last resort when seeking better working conditions, employment protection, and better living conditions. Everybody recognizes that striking can be a last resort. It is the ultimate protection for the respect and dignity of workers.
When workers are down to going on strike, thereby forfeiting their work income, there is problem. It has not been recognized that problems are often caused by employers. But striking was recognized as a right, a right that provides workers with a degree of protection. This right was hard earned, and I know what I am talking about. Common sense prevailed, ultimately. It is one of the benefits of democracy, a topic much talked about in recent days, particularly at this time.
The Labour Code recognizes this right. The Public Service Staff Relations Act also recognizes it. What authority does one have to disregard it or to take it away? Yet this is commonplace, especially in this House and in Ottawa. There is a legal void in the legislation. There is a provision missing, one prohibiting any employer from hiring replacement workers, who are outlaws, basically.
The only way to fill this void is an anti-strikebreaking law, like the one my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides has introduced. It is not a sword dangling over employers' heads. It is a tool to ensure that the law is obeyed. It is not a luxury, either, especially in a society like ours. It is a necessity. We cannot enhance the value of work with one hand, while with the other we prevent development and growth, and still expect success.
History has taught us this in Quebec and in Canada's provinces. Abominable acts have been committed because of this legal void. Think of cases—some were mentioned today—such as Vidéotron recently. How many problems could have been avoided if there had been anti-scab legislation? How much lost time for both employees and employers? How much hate, worry, suffering and financial loss?
When I think of my area, for example, I think of Cargill. We have talked about the 36 months of strike, the 36 months of conflict, because the employer resorted to strikebreakers. That was not a solution; it was a calamity. It is an illusion to think it protects employers.
A strike that is undermined by replacement workers is a strike that goes on and on. It is a situation of increased hostility between two parties who ought to concentrate on wages rather than waging war on the labour front. It is a bunch of trouble, as we say.
I have seen brothers stop speaking to each other. I have seen families that almost collapsed. I have seen a society sliding from harmony into chaos because of this legal void, this hole, which should have been filled in long ago. In my riding, there is the case of Iron Ore and Quebec North Shore, in Sept-Îles, and that is a pathetic case.
Just imagine. Some family members working under Quebec legislation are well protected, and others are dealing with scabs because they, under federal jurisdiction as railway employees, are not. It was awful.
Legislation in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia proves that the trend to integrate the principle of prohibiting the use of workers to replace striking workers is gaining ground. Both with employers' groups and unions, wherever this principle is applied, it is not only well accepted, it has been well integrated.
The days of giving with one hand and taking away with the other are over. It is high time for the federal government to introduce measures to stop disputes resulting from the use of scabs. Workers solely under the Canada Labour Code deserve, like everyone else, quality of life and respect for themselves and their rights.
The use of pressure tactics, such as hiring scabs, subjects workers to great stress. It increases the risk of violence and makes bargaining more difficult, as we have seen numerous times. The evidence is overwhelming.
The use of scabs has led to unfair, dictatorial practices. It forces workers to settle for less than a good agreement and leads to unhealthy labour relations that inevitably result in poorer quality services and often higher unemployment.
The use of scabs during labour disputes tips the balance of power in favour of employers. Employers resorting to such methods are clearly unlikely to bargain in good faith.
Democratic principles must be introduced to labour relations. These principles have proven very beneficial in dispute resolution. Quebec statistics show, beyond all doubt, that, when these principles are applied, strikes are significantly shorter.
This aspect must be considered. The Canada Labour Code is not a complete tool for resolving disputes under its jurisdiction. Far from it.
Quebec and some of the provinces were right to implement a civilized labour relations system. This system has restored the true balance of power to bargaining resulting from labour disputes.
When what I call scabs cross the picket line, it is not a strike, it is a joke. It is a lie. It is hypocrisy.
Either we support the right to strike, with all that this implies, or we oppose this fundamental right in any enlightened society, a right that was hard earned. If we support this right, we cannot violate this sacred right for all workers, whether directly or indirectly. The Canada Labour Code must be updated and improved to meet today's needs and realities.
A bill whose purpose is to improve the Canada Labour Code and supplement the staff relations act without altering them deserves all our consideration and support. Workers would feel better about themselves.
Employers would be protected against unnecessary downward variations in their production, against a negative work environment, against major revenue losses due to lengthy disputes and against the absence of their most qualified and specialized workers, as well as against material losses due to frustration, stress and the animosity that is inevitably generated by the deterioration of labour relations.
I ask you all to think very carefully before rejecting anti-scab legislation, before refusing to include a beneficial element in the Canada Labour Code, because this would also mean giving up on these workers' human dignity and respect. This would violate our parliamentary privileges, which are designed to let us serve the society we have promised to serve well.
Once again, on workers' day, let us offer our workers all the respect and dignity that this protection of their right to strike in civilized conditions would be. I urge the government to support our workers, for once.