Debates of April 7th, 2005

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Members have heard the terms of the amendment by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this minority Parliament to make good use of the opportunities for change that are before us. We must not let this moment pass us by.

Supporting Bill C-263 to amend the Canada Labour Code would allow every member of the House who votes in favour of the bill to look Canadian workers in the eye and know that this minority Parliament had achieved a real and substantive change which would improve the lives of those workers and their families.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Hébert for introducing this private members' bill.

This is not the first time that such legislation has been introduced in the House. For years, the Liberals and Conservatives have failed to protect the rights of workers, preferring instead to put the interests of their business associates ahead of the interests of Canadian workers.

The NDP fully supports amending the Canada Labour Code. Striking workers under federal jurisdiction deserve to know that their jobs are protected when they exercise their legal right to strike. They deserve to be protected from the practice of insidious, humiliating strike breaking because, let us be honest with each other, the use of replacement workers, scabs, is just that. It is flat out strike breaking.

The use of replacement workers has an enormous negative impact on workers, families, communities and even employers. Labour disputes tend to be longer and more bitter. The collective bargaining process is undermined and we see a greater number of violent confrontations.

The practice of bringing in scab labour is a dangerous game that too often in the history of this country has actually prolonged strikes for many months and in some cases even years.

When replacement workers are brought in and they cross the picket lines and striking workers see busload after busload of these workers taking their jobs, as I witnessed myself in the early 1970s at the famous Artistic Woodwork strike, undercutting their very ability to bargain a fair deal, it does not bode well for a future of harmonious labour relations.

In 2002 and 2003, Vidéotron was exempted from legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers in Quebec, because the company was subject to federal legislation. The strike affected 2,200 Vidéotron employees, lasted 10 months and cost 1,000 working days due to the use of replacement workers.

In Ontario, legislation to prevent the use of replacement workers no longer exists, thanks to the Conservative repeal of the NDP's bill 40. As a result, in Chatham in 2002 a security worker hired by International Truck, Navistar to ensure its ability to use replacement workers, drove over a picketer and injured four others. Opponents of the bill would have Canadians believe that striking workers are the bad guys and they paint employers as the victims. I visited Navistar and joined one of those picket lines and I can say that was far from the case.

I have been on many a picket line. I have met with striking workers to find out what their concerns were. I can tell you that these hard-working men and women are the ones who keep Canadian industry rolling.

They are not out to hurt their employer, far from it. When they are forced to take strike action, it is often to defend their right to equitable treatment. It is never a decision lightly taken.

And what of the men and women who cross picket lines and take up the jobs of those workers on strike? They are very often underpaid workers who are highly vulnerable. In many cases, like the men and women on the picket lines, they too are just trying to put food on the table. Too often they are exploited by their employers. In many cases they are not even told that they are being hired to replace striking workers.

It is wrong to pit worker against worker. The employers who practise such tactics do us all a disservice. The government must take action to stop such practices. In British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario prior to the Mike Harris regime, already we have shown how legislation can be put in place to prevent the use of replacement workers. We find that the labour climate in those contexts is more amiable. Labour disputes tend to be shorter, the threat of violence is removed and there is greater mutual respect between labour and management. These are the facts; they are indisputable.

The federal government must set an example to all the provinces. In provinces where there is no legislation for protection against strikebreakers, workers' negotiating power is weakened and the ability of ordinary people to improve their working conditions is limited still more.

The federal government has a duty to foster a fair and equitable climate of work throughout the country. On the economic level, it makes complete sense for bargaining units to be able to meet on equal footing and for businesses to be able to avoid lengthy work stoppages and circumstances that create discord and bitterness.

Workers' organizations are important partners in building a prosperous and fair economy in the 21st century.

Supporting Bill C-263 is a long awaited and much needed measure that would demonstrate that the Government of Canada supports and believes in the workers' right to bargain for fair and equitable treatment without the threat of coercive tactics. It is time that this minority government worked for working Canadians.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today, although I should not call it a debate. A two hour debate on a private member's bill of such importance does not do it justice.

The member who just spoke, as strongly as he feels about this, I think would agree with me that this issue is not something we can deal with in a two hour debate. It needs a lot more discussion and involvement by both sides.

Nobody in the House would dispute many of the points which my colleague raised, but there is always another side to a story. No one maybe in the country feels more for the working person than I do. I am sure I can say that for all members in the House. That is the reason why we are here.

We have to remember that in order for the ordinary common worker to work every day somebody has to initiate employment. Somebody has to create the opportunities. Somebody has to put his or her money on the line to create employment. It is unfair to say that this is all one-sided.

Nobody would or should condone the abuse of workers by employers. Nobody should condone the slamming of doors if one does not agree with what workers are looking for and bringing in somebody else. To a large degree the laws of the land dictate that cannot or should not happen.

Within recent years, we have thoroughly, debated, discussed and researched decisions that seem to be reasonable. If the interpretation of the legislation is not being upheld or is being changed, then members opposite who sit in government should ensure that the laws are being followed. If there are weaknesses in our laws, then by all means let us change them, but let us change them with reason. Let us change them within the proper forum and with the proper involvement, expertise, input and discussion.

We have to be careful in what we do with legislation because sometimes instead of helping individuals, we can do a lot more to hurt them. I see people who are concerned about their employment this year. I see friends of mine who have been locked out, or are on picket lines and replacement workers have become involved. If we ensure that one side is fully protected but enough damage is done to the other side, nobody wins because there will be no work for anybody. Nobody understands that more than the worker.

The previous speaker said quite clearly that workers go to work every day with the intention of giving a good days effort for a day's pay. They ask for fairness. They want to ensure they protect their employer because without them they will have no work. I know that is true because I talk to them. Workers are sometimes coerced and enticed to do things which perhaps they would not ordinarily do.

Games are being played on both sides just as games are played in the House. That is the nature of humanity and the forum in which we operate, whether it be in the employer-employee relationship or the government-opposition relationship. When we have to make firm, hard, fast and fair decisions, then we have to ensure that they are acceptable to both.

Back in 1999, HRDC undertook an extensive review that resulted in an amendment to part I of the Canadian Labour Code relating to the issue of replacement workers. A task force, chaired by Andrew Sims, prepared a report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. Are we not talking about seeking a balance and not creating an unfair advantage one way or another? Accusations are being made that there is an unfair balance. That may be the case. Maybe somebody will want to argue the other side.

This issue was addressed not by a private member's bill in a two hour debate. It was addressed by a task force which had input from all the stakeholders involved. After thorough discussion and debate, a report was tabled and the majority recommended the provision that would give employers flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, but would prevent them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. A minority report recommended the prohibition of replacement workers, which is similar to the provisions of this bill.

The rights of the worker are supposed to be protected. I say supposed to be because who are any of us to determine that? The courts interpret the legislation, but the rights of the workers are supposed to be protected in this legislation that was put together as a result of a thorough task force. If the legislation is not working, then perhaps the legislation should be reviewed in the proper forum with the proper input in the proper way from the proper stakeholders.

The overall intent is not something that anybody opposes. The concern is the mechanisms in which we make such changes. None of us can walk in here with an idea to support a friend, a group, a province or whatever without the proper knowledge of the people who are making these decisions. We cannot say it sounds good and go with it because we do not know the effect on the other side. Nor do we know the consequences that may result to the very person looking for this change. In order to have a labour code that protects workers, maybe it is time we did a thorough review.

The relevant portion of the current labour code, section 94(2.1), is a result of the majority report and provides that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives. Is that not exactly what the leader of the NDP was asking for? I think it is.

If this legislation is not providing this, and this is what it is supposed to do, then therein lies the problem. Consequently, the review of this should be in a much better forum than we see here today.

It is an attempt to deal fairly with the issue of replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction by accommodating the competing values and interests of employees, employers and the unions. It attempts to strike a balance by prohibiting the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity, as determined by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Nobody argues that workers should not be treated fairly. Nobody agrees that workers can be pushed aside and somebody else brought in to do the work when they are operating under contract or where they are legitimate employees of a company. The concern is that if we are going to change laws and regulations, then we had better do it properly because it is not only the employers and employees who would suffer, but as a country we could greatly suffer also.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, workers in Quebec have benefited from anti-scab legislation for 28 years, since 1977. There is a consensus in Quebec in support of this anti-scab legislation.

Employer associations and employers are satisfied with it. In fact, I met some of them last fall and I was told that they were quite pleased with the legislation, this for four good reasons.

First, this legislation reduces the duration of labour disputes. It reduces violence and vandalism on the picket lines. It helps maintain a good atmosphere after the disputes, because there is less resentment. Finally, it creates only one category of workers.

This is what we are talking about here. In Quebec, there are currently two categories of workers. On the one hand, 90% of the manpower in Quebec is covered by the Quebec labour code and enjoys the benefits of this anti-scab legislation. On the other hand, currently, in 2005, 8% of all workers come under federal jurisdiction and the Canada Labour Code. This means that 326,000 workers do not benefit from anti-scab legislation. These people work in banks, telecommunications, radio, television, ports, airports, grain companies and even telegraph companies.

As hon. members know, a labour dispute is first and foremost an economic power relationship. During a labour dispute, we have on one side an employer who usually does without his production revenues and services and, on the other, union members who are so convinced of the merits of their claims that they are prepared to do without their only source of income, that is, their salaries.

When the employer involved in a labour dispute hires strikebreakers, it is as if, during a hockey game, when the teams are playing five against five, one team—namely the employer—decided to hire five more players and play the game with ten players against five. As we can see, strikebreakers are intruders in a dispute.

Strikebreakers are allies of the employers in a dispute in which they have no business, usually. By hiring them, an employer can thus maintain services, production and revenues. Their role is essentially to help an employer by relieving him from some economic pressure and allowing him to let the dispute go on as long as is necessary to “break” the union, because this is indeed what it is all about. Strikebreakers are union breakers.

Union members truly have the feeling that someone has stolen their jobs, and they are right. Their jobs have been stolen by people who are paid less, who—as I mentioned earlier—make the dispute last longer, who take their places, their work stations, their lockers, who pass by them every morning while they are on the picket lines and whose mere presence is an insult to them.

It creates a feeling of injustice leading to frustration and, most unfortunately, violent acts. In fact, frustration does not improve one's judgment, nor moderate one's behaviour. Such incidents often go unseen by union officials. Violence in a labour dispute situation causes resentment that lingers for many years.

As for the replacement workers—or strikebreakers—they are not in an easy position either. They are in a very difficult position because they are being exploited by an employer who is paying them much less than the regular employees. Even though they nurture a secret wish to keep their employment, they know very well that they will lose their jobs when the strike is over.

Moreover, they do not have the same rights as any other worker in Quebec or Canada. They know very well that they will never be able to form a union, which is a right guaranteed in part I of the Canada Labour Code. They do not have that right.

In 1982, for example, radio station CHNC in Bonaventure hired 12 replacement workers. Two years later, in 1984, these 12 replacement workers requested union accreditation. That was the height of absurdity, and a situation that had never been seen before.

Obviously their request was denied. However, the fact remains that at that moment in time these 12 replacement workers felt they were a sub-category of workers.

There are four major advantages. It reduces the duration of labour disputes. That is true. In 2002, when federal workers made up 6.6% of the workforce in Quebec, they were responsible for 48% of the days lost because of labour disputes. It reduces violence and vandalism. We know this, we feel it, we do not need statistics to prove it. It fuels a positive environment, in the small communities especially. In Baie-Comeau, among other places, after the three-year strike at Cargill, I could go on at length about the families that no longer speak to one another and how that came to be. Finally, it creates a single category of workers.

This is the eleventh time an anti-scab bill has been introduced in this House. This is the ninth one introduced by the Bloc. This will be the fourth time such a bill will be voted on. In 2003, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord almost managed to get her bill passed. She was only 18 votes short. The Progressive Conservatives, the then Alliance MPs and the Liberals had voted largely in favour of the bill. Even the current Minister of Labour and Housing had voted in favour of it. What has happened in the meantime?

In conclusion, I ask that all members of this House vote in favour of this bill, a symbol of one of the best laws we could pass, as it does not give an unfair advantage to any party involved in a labour dispute. That is one good reason to pass legislation.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the important issue of labour policy in Canada.

The aim of Bill C-263 is to amend the Canada Labour Code so as to prohibit the hiring of replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

I am unable to support this bill today for the following reasons. I want to explain them to the House.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code seeks to establish a delicate balance of the rights and responsibilities of employers, unions and employees. It provides a reliable system of checks and balances enabling the parties to resolve their own disputes according to rules that, I hope, are equitable. I will come back to this point later.

If the use of replacement workers is prohibited, as Bill C-263 seeks to do, these rules would no longer be equitable or, at least, the balance would shift, and perhaps lack the necessary checks and balances.

As hon. members know, we recently brought in legislation to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code and improve collective bargaining. We are seeing the benefits of these improvements every day. Part I of the code was amended in 1999. These amendments were the result of lengthy consultations with stakeholders in the labour community and included a study led by a former labour board chair, Andy Sims, Q.C.

The issue of replacement workers was carefully considered at that time both through consultations and debate in the House. During the consultations labour and management representatives were able to agree on a number of reforms. However, it soon became clear that there were two opposing camps on the issue of replacement workers and it is quite obvious who was on which side.

Members of the Sims task force were also unable to reach a consensus on this thorny issue. That is why we are now having this debate but without the benefit of the recommendations of the Sims task force.

The current provisions of part I of the code concerning replacement workers implement the majority recommendations of the Sims task force. The new provisions do not impose a general prohibition on the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage, but using replacement workers to undermine a union's capacity to represent its members is now prohibited as an unfair labour practice. Therefore, there are some measures to protect the employees in that regard.

I can assure the House that the parties who engage in collective bargaining throughout Canada under part I of the code have accepted this approach and are negotiating now under what is a reasonable system.

I have a few statistics. About 91% of all collective agreements renewed in the federal jurisdiction in 2003-4 were settled without a work stoppage, a strong contributor to the health of our economy. Key agreements were renewed without a work stoppage in many different sectors involving major employers covered by the Canada Labour Code, such as Bell Canada, VIA Rail, CIBC, Canadian Pacific Railway, the Vancouver Port Authority and so on.

A review of labour program data from the period 1992 to 2002 indicates that the average number of working days lost to labour disputes in the private sector was 18, compared to 19 days for private sector enterprises covered for instance by the Quebec Labour Code.

These figures demonstrate the skill that we bring to the resolution of contentious disputes. They clearly show that the Canada Labour Code is working.

Using replacement workers during an industrial dispute remains a contentious issue in Canada. The fact is that most major federally regulated employers do not hire replacement workers. It is my understanding that there have only been about 15 complaints over the use of replacement workers since January 1999. In other words, this many complaints taken to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. Of the three decisions issued to date, none of the companies have been found to be violating the law. The majority of other complaints were withdrawn.

Only two provinces in Canada have labour legislation which restricts the right of employers to use replacement workers during work stoppages: Quebec and British Columbia. Despite this ban under provincial labour legislation, the use of replacement workers remains a major issue in many labour conflicts in both Quebec and B.C.

For example, in Quebec investigations concerning the illegal use of replacement workers were requested in 52% of work stoppages in 1996. This raises another matter. If we are going to engage in something like this and we are doing it with this kind of a record in front of us, then I do not think it is a solution to anything. It is certainly not functional right now.

In British Columbia, complaints about the use of replacement workers were lodged in 50% of the work stoppages in 2002. In other words, it was about the same.

It is clear that the use of replacement workers is a polarizing issue for the stakeholders. Employee representatives and unions typically support a complete ban on the use of replacement workers. On the other hand, employers invariably argue in favour of their use. Both sides have legitimate reasons for holding the positions they do. That is why the Sims task force came up with the best compromise possible, one that has a balance between the two competing views.

There is an important point of principle here that we must consider. Some will argue that the employer's countervailing power to the union's right to strike is the lockout. That is not so. The countervailing power of the union's right to withdraw its labour is the employer's right to continue to operate its business. The new provision in the code was an attempt to balance the interests of both parties.

There is one other point that needs to be made. It is to determine whether the use of replacement workers makes work stoppages shorter or longer. A recent independent study has challenged preconceived ideas on the connection between the use of replacement workers and the duration and frequency of strikes.

That study has shown that banning the use of replacement workers is in fact associated with more frequent and longer strikes. This is in contradiction to the perception that the lack of any ban on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code contributes to more frequent and more lengthy work stoppages.

Our role as legislators is not to choose one camp over the other. It is instead to come up with legislation that does not respond to the specific needs of one party at the expense of the other. That is why the legislative amendments made in 1999 are such a faithful reflection of the recommendations of the Sims task force.

Our government feels that the balanced approach set out in Part I of the Canada Labour Code is the best approach to the issue of replacement workers in sectors under federal jurisdiction.

If there were a need to change that balance—and in this I am on the same page as the Conservative Party member who has just spoken—I would prefer to see another task force like Sims set up, with a new study, a consensus reached within the task force membership, and then recommendations to the minister. These might even be tabled in the House so that we could consider them, rather than acting as we are today in a kind of vacuum, without any such consultation. This would, I believe, help us make some progress with a bill such as this.

For all these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-263.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reiterating my full support for the anti-scab bill. I am particularly interested in this legislation, since I worked with unions for over 20 years. Take my word: I witnessed time and again how important it is to prohibit the use of strikebreakers during a labour dispute. Quebec has had an anti-scab act since 1977. To this day, all the stakeholders, including Quebec employers, recognize the need for such legislation.

First, it is impossible for two parties to negotiate when a third party gets involved and changes the power relationship between the two. For example, let us suppose I want to buy a house and the owner would like to get $100,000 for it. I make an offer of $90,000. If a third party shows up and offers $110,000, he will automatically put me out of contention. It is the same principle when a union is negotiating, except that, in addition, the third party, namely the strikebreakers, undermines the workers' ability to have some bargaining power when dealing with the employer.

The use of scabs generates frustration, animosity and violence. It substantially lengthens the duration of conflicts. I will give some numbers to confirm my point. I want to refer to the famous Sims report, which is constantly used by opponents to the bill. Yet this report is full of major contradictions, and this is why I want to put into proper perspective some of the comments and figures that are included in it.

According to Andrew Sims, the main author of the report, between 1991 and 1994, 75% of the employers involved in labour disputes did not use replacement workers, preferring not to undermine relations between the union and management. The other 25%—that is in 12 of the 48 labour disputes governed by the Canada Labour Code—hired scabs. While Mr. Sims is opposed to anti-scab legislation, he agrees that scabs should not be used to exclude the union, or undermine its role. However, it is demonstrated that the employers who resorted to strikebreakers did so precisely to exclude the union, as confirmed by strikers' complaints of unfair practices and their personal testimony.

Also, as I said earlier, the use of strikebreakers significantly prolongs labour disputes. This is demonstrated, including in the Gunderson study entitled The Effect of Collective Bargaining Legislation on Strikes and Wages , published in 1994.

According to the Quebec department of labour, in all Quebec labour disputes involving the labour code of Quebec—where anti-scab legislation exists—roughly 5,693 person-days were lost between 1980 and 2003. In all Quebec labour disputes involving the Canada Labour Code, 16,032 person-days of work were lost during that same period. A quick calculation shows that disputes last almost three times longer for Quebec workers under the federal labour code than for those under the Quebec labour code. Furthermore, note that Quebec workers under the Canada Labour Code only represented roughly 5% of the entire workforce, which considerably increases our rule of three!

Disputes are longer because of the use of scabs. We have even seen strikes or lockouts last up to four years. Imagine your brother, your father or even you in a federally-regulated job and you end up going on strike or being locked out for nearly four years. Imagine going four years without a salary! How would you react? What would you say about this? The employer is negotiating in good faith? How do you measure good faith? Is there a time limit on good faith?

What would prompt an employer to negotiate if there is no financial pressure because of replacement workers?

In reality, as long as the company has enough supplies to survive a strike or a lockout, or as long as it can hire staff to do the same work at a lower cost, the unions no longer have bargaining power.

How do workers affected cope with this on a daily basis? How does it impact their family life?

The longer the dispute, the less tolerable the situation. Imagine the father or the mother being denied their income and watching the busload of scabs crossing the picket lines with impunity. Worse yet, there have been scabs who have requested union certification. That takes the cake! Their request was denied, but does this not show that employers who use replacement workers do not respect workers?

In a market where anti-scab legislation does not exist, the solution to the problem becomes full employment. Theoretically speaking, there would be no workers available, nor anyone interested in replacing a worker during a dispute. Clearly the employer benefits from a rate of unemployment slightly higher than the natural rate of unemployment, which is roughly 5%.

The use of strikebreakers not only lengthens and inflames disputes, it makes a harmonious return to work at the end of the dispute more difficult. Workers are very likely to remain bitter about the experience and angry with their employer and even the strikebreakers.

In some communities where there are strikes, replacement workers have been relatives of the strikers. Picture the scenario: a worker does without a salary in an effort to negotiate better working conditions, and a family member comes along to support management and impede negotiations taking the worker's place for less money. What will this do to family relations? Do you ever ask yourself? It is not hard to understand that, when more than one party is involved, they need support. If people are left on their own, the result is animosity, as mentioned earlier.

So the absence of anti-strikebreaking legislation carries a significant psychological cost. It affects human dignity and creates family and financial problems over and above the social cost of a strike or prolonged lockout.

Let us restore the dignity of the workers who are governed by the Canada Labour Code through no choice of their own. Let us eliminate the three categories of workers created by the absence of anti-strikebreaking legislation. There are workers covered by the Quebec labour code, those covered by the federal labour code and those commonly referred to as scabs, who do not enjoy the same rights as those in the first two categories and are not covered by legislation.

We must be proud of our workers and give them their full due in society. Let us be open and fair, since they are the cornerstone of a healthy economy. Without them, our society would not be what it is. The best way to support them is to give them our respect and consideration for the job they do. Let us vote in favour of Bill C-263.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-263. However, I disagree with the provisions of this bill.

Hon. members are all familiar with the enormous challenges facing governments and Canadian workers in the 21st century. Today we are grappling with workplace issues, issues of globalization and new technologies we never dreamed of just a few years ago. Labour issues are a big part of the global economy.

More and more, the forces that drive our economy, affect our job markets, our employers, our employees and our policy making have a strong international dimension.

These forces exert a great influence on employers, employees and the collective bargaining process in general.

The issues need to be addressed by employers and labour alike. That is why we recently introduced changes to the industrial relations legislation in Canada.

Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code creates a strong framework for collective bargaining in the federal private sector. It provides a process and procedure for timely resolution of disputes. It was amended in 1999 after a lengthy review, including a study by an independent task force of industrial relations experts.

During review of part 1, the most controversial issue was that of replacement workers. Labour and management held firmly opposing views. Even members of the Sims task force, which conducted the review, were unable to reach a consensus on the issues.

Most of the parties that bargain under part I of the Canada Labour Code will agree that the approach adopted in the code, at present, is balanced.

The current provision in the Canada Labour Code is a compromise. Organized labour wanted a complete ban on the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage and employers wanted a completely free hand. The new provision does not impose a general prohibition on the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage. However using replacement workers to undermine a union's capacity to represent its members is prohibited and constitutes an unfair labour practice.

Throughout all of Canada there are only two jurisdictions that have legislation similar to what is proposed in Bill C-263. Two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, have labour legislation that restricts the right of employers to use the services of replacement workers during work stoppages.

Despite their ban under provincial labour legislation, use of replacement workers is a lightning rod for controversy in many labour conflicts in Quebec and British Columbia. For example, in Quebec, investigations concerning the illegal use of replacement workers were requested in 52% of work stoppages in 1996. In British Columbia, complaints about the use of replacement workers were filed in 50% of work stoppages in 2002.

We also know that banning the use of replacement workers does little to shorten the length of strikes.

An independent study by university researchers conducted in 1998-99 concluded that a legislative ban on the use of replacement workers actually lengthens strikes by an average of 32 days.

Despite legislation banning replacement workers, longer strikes still exist in Quebec, including the recently settled dispute at the Société des Alcools du Québec, or SAQ, which lasted almost three months and involved 3,800 workers.

Clearly, if an increase in the frequency and duration of strikes can be attributed to banning the use of replacement workers, we need to think twice about legislating such a ban.

Under the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Industrial Relations Board is able to order an employer to stop using replacement workers if it is proven that the employer is doing so for improper purposes. This provision, and other amendments to part 1 of the code, is designed to protect employees' rights during work stoppages in Canada. It provides a balanced approach to the replacement worker issue.

We are firmly convinced that part I of the Canada Labour Code makes it possible to settle the question of replacement workers fairly, taking into account the concurrent values and interests of employers, unions and employees.

Certainly the proposed amendments in this bill would negatively impact the balanced approach found in current labour negotiations.

Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code is a complex and sophisticated piece of legislation. It was developed and fine-tuned over time in consultation with trade unionists, employer groups, academics, labour law administrators and other experts in the field.

Thanks to this collaborative approach, we have succeeded in developing legislation that meets the needs of both workers and employers.

Part 1 of the code represents a delicate balance between the rights and responsibilities of employers, unions and employees. As legislators, we must act responsibly. We must not undermine that balance by changing one small provision without carefully considering the impact on the whole.

The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code meet present needs and should not be amended at this time.

That is why I must vote against Bill C-263.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and humbled to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-263.

I appreciate the spirit in which the bill has been presented. Having spent a little over 30 years in municipal government, I have been very close to the negotiating scene in a variety of instances in private and public arbitrations and negotiations. I have seen the impact of labour strife when it occurs within a city or within a constituency and I appreciate very much the issues that have been raised.

The very delicate balance that exists with respect to the environment within which negotiations take place should be taken very seriously. The underpinning of natural justice is that each side in a dispute has an opportunity to have its rights represented.

With respect to the position put forward by my colleague who spoke before me, if we think of that level playing field in which the workers have the right to strike, the counterbalance to that in terms of the rights of the employer would be the right to still operate a business. As has been pointed out, the existing legislation provides for that balance. I would hope that we would not support this bill because it would skew the relationship and balance between employees and the right of employers to have their businesses continue.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to conclude the debate on Bill C-263, which I had the pleasure and the honour of introducing in the House on November 4.

This anti-scab legislation seeks to prohibit the backward practice—let us not mince words—of using strikebreakers, or replacement workers or scabs, as they are commonly called. The objective is to ensure that the Canada Labour Code standards are more in line with those of the Quebec labour code.

As we know, Quebec has had an anti-scab act since 1977. This is a legacy of René Lévesque. As the member for Louis-Hébert, I am very proud to be associated, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, with a strong and progressive bill.

There is no question that the Quebec legislation has helped Quebec move forward in terms of labour relations, in addition to reducing the duration of labour disputes, curbing violence during strikes and lockouts and, particularly, improving the working environment.

Despite its positive aspects, the Quebec anti-scab legislation has had the effect of creating two categories of workers: those who benefit from such protection and the thousands of others who are deprived of that right, because their employers come under the Canada Labour Code.

Now, we all agree that the federal regulations are inadequate. The extremely vague provisions in the Canada Labour Code limit the use of scabs, but this is largely insufficient. Thousands of workers in Quebec currently subject to the Canada Labour Code are calling on parliamentarians to do something for them. They no longer want to find themselves helpless when replacement workers come in and steal their jobs.

In recent years, numerous labour disputes have dragged on without good reason, some in Quebec and some in Canada. For example, there were the strikes involving Radio Nord, Vidéotron and Cargill. People have not forgotten. They know that people suffered because they were replaced by scab workers.

All this is possible under our famous Canada Labour Code, which some colleagues in other parties still consider to be appropriate and adequate. However, this is no longer true, and that is why I introduced this anti-scab bill.

The Bloc Québécois are been trying for years to harmonize federal and Quebec legislation. In June 2002, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord had tabled a petition supporting a similar bill bearing by 46,000 signatures. I hope the bill passes this time. We want to prohibit the use of scabs.

Finally, in my opinion, this bill is well suited to current conditions, and not conditions from 20 or 30 years ago. The Canada Labour Code must be reviewed in light of these changes and modern times to promote the rapid and, above all, as my colleagues have mentioned, peaceful settlement of labour disputes.

I will conclude this debate by repeating to the House that there is widespread support for this fair, equitable and modern measure. A consensus exists not only among my colleagues but among the unions and workers. In Quebec, even employer organizations have no criticism of the provincial legislation, because they find it appropriate and fair.

We hope that the House will finally adopt this bill, since it is progressive, liberal and even—dare I say—democratic. I want to thank all my colleagues in the House who have supported or will support this bill, because it is fundamental to our society.

I will close by pointing out that in November of 2003, right here in the Outaouais, I took part with my fellow journalists in a congress of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec. That was my profession before I got into politics. At this fine congress where there was much talk of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there were workers from Radio Nord who were handing out information leaflets.

That day, I took the first political step of my life, before I was even a politician. I invited them to my table so that they could explain to the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes what a balance of power looks like when it is distorted and faked.

I promise to dedicate this bill to the workers of Radio Nord and to all those who have seen replacement workers come along and take the food from their mouths. These are the ones to whom we promise a bill that is worthy of their confidence, a bill that is more civilized and more humane.

I therefore invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-263.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 18:18, the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 13, 2005, before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to something that is very instrumental and dear to my riding. It is also a great pleasure to do it with seven members of my family here tonight, including my 11-year-old niece. I welcome them.

Agriculture is one of the largest industry sectors in Canada. Unfortunately, due in large part to years of Liberal government neglect, many components of this vital industry have experienced long term revenue declines, in addition to suffering through a wide range of crises. This has created a significant problem for many producers who cannot count on a steady income from year to year.

Even when production costs remain relatively stable, producers are not always able to meet these costs due to unstable markets, trade actions and disease. We are all familiar with the BSE crisis which has impacted beef, dairy, sheep and other livestock producers. Crop farmers have also experienced a shocking decline in revenue with an unprecedented collapse in prices for grains and oilseeds in Canada.

The increasing globalization of agricultural markets presents its own challenge. Canada must deal with subsidies and tariffs in an environment where not all countries play by the same rules. In fact, many producers refer to the lack of a level playing field.

The Liberal government's response to the numerous challenges of the farming community has been the Canadian agriculture income stabilization program, very unaffectionately known as the CAIS program. This program is intended to secure a level of protection by means of a deposit paid by producers. The deposit requirement, which has been universally rejected by industry groups across this country, ties up producers' money in deposits which could otherwise be used for much needed farm equipment, operating expenses or debt repayment. Rather than helping producers in crisis, the program actually places a greater economic burden on producers.

Nearly 100,000 producers participate in the CAIS program. Their combined accounts represent $623 million, their money. Would this not be a substantial cash flow to agriculture if we simply released it to the producers now?

Furthermore, the rules of the CAIS program are so complicated that most producers cannot apply without the help of an accountant. In addition to being complicated, the program does not respond to expanding or downsizing operations and cannot properly value inventories. The end result is a dysfunctional program for producers who are already in dire straits.

Because the program combines disaster relief and income stabilization, it overvalues commodities in times of crisis. For instance, amid the BSE crisis, cattle herds have dropped significantly in value. Producers receive no compensation for the decline in the value of their herds unless they sell these herds at a loss. Unfortunately, our limited slaughter capacity in this country often makes it impossible to sell the animals even at a loss, so the drop in value cannot be claimed. As a result, producers who deserve compensation are told that they are ineligible. This is unacceptable.

My colleagues and I in the Conservative Party have called for an end to this onerous CAIS deposit requirement. The Liberal government responded by extending the deposit deadline until 2006 for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 program years. When a deadline has been extended three times, one would think that is a sign the program is not working.

It is clear that alternative programs are needed. The Conservative Party of Canada has proposed separating long term stability concerns from the short term need to respond to crises. This would ensure financial viability for producers while also responding adequately and appropriately to unforeseen circumstances, such as market access collapse, as we have seen with the BSE crisis.

In closing, our agricultural industry is fundamental to the Canadian economy. The family farm is one of the institutions upon which our country was founded. CAIS cannot respond to long term stability issues and to crises. New programs must be developed that decouple income stabilization from disaster relief. A Conservative government would do just that, because Canada's farmers deserve better.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member's family here tonight. I know the member is concerned about these issues but his facts are substantially wrong. I will try to explain it.

The fact is that federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working on the CAIS deposit requirement issue for quite some time. In the summer of 2004 consultations were held with the industry right across the country. Yes, as the member says, industry wanted a complete and immediate elimination of the CAIS deposit requirement.

On the farm, income hearings that I held in January, it was basically the same thing. Producers were saying that we should eliminate the CAIS deposit requirement.

However, agriculture is a joint jurisdiction between the federal, provincial and territorial governments and both levels of government are involved. In terms of making a change, the approval of eight of the provinces is required. The federal government cannot do it unilaterally on its own.

If we were to move unilaterally on our own, the opposition would be standing up criticizing the government for having done that. However we have done the best that we could do. Certainly through the budget the Minister of Finance has outlined our intent.

Provincial and territorial ministers have expressed their agreement with two core principles of the CAIS deposit requirement, which is also an important part: that producers share in the cost of management of business risk under CAIS, and that an alternative to the deposit requirement that satisfies those core principles must be developed to replace the current deposit requirement.

The Minister of Agriculture has therefore tasked government officials to work with industry to develop alternatives to the deposit based on the two principles. Ministers have also agreed that the alternative must be ready for implementation for the 2006 CAIS program year.

The budget announcement made it clear that the federal government agrees with Canadian farmers, in that producers should not be required to put funds on deposit annually in order to be eligible for the CAIS program. The budget made the point that the federal government is committed to working with its provincial partners and with industry to find a better means of effectively engaging producers in the joint management of business risk under CAIS.

The Minister of Agriculture and his provincial and territorial colleagues were well aware that the March 31, 2005 deadline for deposits was quickly approaching. On March 23, the federal and provincial governments announced interim measures for CAIS, while governments worked toward an alternative for the deposit. Those interim measures included: extending the deposit deadline for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 program years to March 2006; and allowing producers who had more than their required one-third deposit in their CAIS accounts to withdraw those excess funds.

Clearly, we are showing that we are moving toward eliminating that deposit and finding other alternatives to doing it. Alternatives to the deposit requirement will be presented to the federal, provincial and territorial ministers at their annual meeting in July.

The bottom line is that we want to move ahead and do it and the hon. member should know that and recognize it.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing wrong in this whole thing that he mentioned is the way the announcements by the minister came out.

Just recently the Minister of Agriculture announced money for agriculture but a large part of that was pre-announced money. Another big part of it is that the money is not even the government's to give. It is farmers' money and they include that in there. It deceives the public and it deceives the farmers.

Seventy per cent of the producers in my riding are not even eligible for CAIS for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, and I am one of them. However I am not standing up here tonight for myself. I am standing up for all the other farmers in my riding who are not eligible for one red cent from CAIS.

On top of that, we have that aforementioned $623 million tied up and, basically, it is not the government's money. Talk about stealing the food out of people's hands when they are starving to death, that is what this is.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, again let us look at some facts. Thank goodness the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was successful in terms of the most recent farm income program, a billion dollars to the industry. That is not to be sneezed at and that certainly is going out.

On the CAIS program, in terms of it not working, it should be said that some 88,600 producers received more than $1.2 billion in the first 15 months of the program. We know that is not solving all the problems. That is why we are doing other things and other reviews. It is why we have the farm income program in place.

The bottom line in terms of this debate tonight is about the CAIS deposit requirement. The minister has made it clear. He has moved the deposit requirement forward to March 31, 2006 so that we can deal with that problem. The Minister of Agriculture and the Government of Canada are clearly showing leadership on this issue in producers' interests.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 11, 2005 at 11 a.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, April 6, 2005.

(The House adjourned at 6:32 p.m.)