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.