Debates of Feb. 26th, 2024

Canada Labour Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the Province of Quebec, the Province of British Columbia and, now, the federal government moving toward anti-scab legislation. How can this provide national leadership so that, hopefully, other provinces will look at the legislation, look at what other provinces are doing and look at bringing in more anti-scab legislation across the country?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I invite every province in Canada to follow Quebec's example. However, we are sorry that it is going so slowly that I think that Quebeckers are going to make a different choice in a few years so as not to endlessly repeat past battles. It is a fight we have already won in Quebec, and with Quebec's independence, we will consolidate these gains and all the others I mentioned earlier. It is coming soon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Taxation; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member of the Bloc Québécois for his kind introduction and his wonderful speech.

This is my first speech about Bill C-58. The Green Party supports this legislative measure because it is necessary. I am so pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it, and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this bill. It is so important for workers' rights and employer-employee relations.

I had the experience, before ever becoming involved in partisan politics, and the real honour of working on behalf of organized labour and trade unions. I was a lawyer with the only downtown firm in Halifax, in those days, that represented only union-side labour. All the other downtown firms in Halifax represented the employers. I had the great honour of working on behalf of the longshoremen's union, the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union and others.

I understand something about labour relations and the importance of having leverage, having some way in which workers have tools to create balance so that the employer does not hold all the cards. We know that when a union goes into a legal strike position, it is very important that they are able to exercise those rights, because they are rights. The difficulty we have had in Canada over many years is that, in common parlance or the terminology, employers will use “scab” labour. Scab labour translates to the language in this legislation: “replacement workers”.

It is the same thing. The slang term is “scab workers”. They are a serious threat to workers' rights.

It has been a long time coming to this legislation, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who just spoke, pointed out.

The province of Quebec has had legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout. That legislation has been in place in Quebec for 46 years.

I want to once again commend Quebec. The Province of Quebec has often been the first to implement such important measures. That was the case with day care and with workers' rights.

Here we are, finally, in February, debating this legislation, at second reading before a vote, which was first tabled in November. While I was waiting for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, I went back over Hansard and tried to find any evidence of any speech from any Conservative member of Parliament that would let us know if they favoured the legislation or not.

We just tried again with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I cannot find any clear indication, which means that I live in hope that my Conservative friends will be voting in favour of getting this legislation passed at second reading and to committee where it does need some improvements.

[An hon. member]

Wait for the vote.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friends across the way said that they want to keep me in suspense. That is okay. Suspense is a lot of fun.

I do hope that everyone in this place, across all party lines, will vote for this legislation. It does need amendments. I see that the United Steelworkers union has made it clear that it would like to see the exemptions and the loopholes in this bill, Bill C-58, removed. There are some exemptions that would allow certain categories of workers and volunteers to continue their activities during strikes and lockouts. That certainly undermines the core purpose of this legislation.

The main purpose of this bill is to do away with the use of replacement workers. We do not need small loopholes that allow for the use of replacement workers.

We do not need loopholes. We need to close them up and tighten them up when this bill gets to committee.

Another place where I hope we can see improvements in committee is in getting rid of the 18-month delay before the bill would come into force. We have seen, as I mentioned, that the Province of Quebec has had this legislation for 46 years. The Province of British Columbia also has this legislation. A stable set of union-employer relations and a system of collective bargaining that is respected really matter. Both sides have their tools, and they need to have access to those tools. It is an unbalanced and therefore less economically secure situation for our economy when the tools to one side are removed. Strikes and lockouts actually last longer when scab labour is used. There is greater stability and greater security for our economy when scab labour is eliminated, and I would urge the government to amend the legislation to make this stronger.

However, in looking at this and going back over Hansard to try to find any indication of how my Conservative friends were going to vote, I found that friends from South Shore—St. Margarets, Mégantic—L'Érable, Essex, Calgary Nose Hill, Calgary Rocky Ridge, Chilliwack—Hope, Provencher, Battle River—Crowfoot and Sarnia—Lambton made repeated reference to things that have nothing to do with this legislation. If I may, I will take a moment just to clarify.

When we talk of replacement workers, we mean specifically one thing only: the use of scab labour when a union is in a legal position to strike or there is a lockout. Those are the situations in which replacement workers in this legislation, Bill C-58, are referenced and banned. It is unfortunate, then, that in so much of the very limited debate, consisting of basically three days, with a number of speakers, over and over again Conservative members have raised the Stellantis battery plant, its use of federal dollars and the fact that it is also subcontracting with South Korea. Numerous speakers have made the mistake of referring to workers, in the context of workers from South Korea working at the Stellantis battery plant as part of a trade agreement that was put in place by the previous Conservative government, as somehow being replacement workers. They are emphatically not replacement workers when they are from other countries under agreements that have been made. Certainly, the Green Party prefers that all workers in Canada are Canadian workers who live and work here, but we have many, many agreements with large multinationals to use workers from other countries. Just to be very, very clear for people watching from home, those workers are not replacement workers. They have nothing to do with this legislation.

Therefore, despite references that somehow the Liberals are violating their own Bill C-58 by allowing 900 workers from South Korea at the Stellantis battery plant, saying that they are, as quoted from one of my Conservative colleagues, “essentially replacement workers”, I want to be very clear that they are essentially nothing of the sort. They have nothing to do with Bill C-58. They are not replacement workers. They are, in fact, workers from another country who have been brought in under the kinds of deals that have been organized between transnational corporations and various governments in this country. It is not my favourite thing to see workers come in from other countries, but let us not mix up our concepts, because it creates confusion in the public.

This legislation is, purely and simply, about one thing and one thing only. That is to defend the rights of workers within trade unions to support organized labour in this country, which has given us so much. From work hours that are reasonable and banning child labour to many social improvements right across this country, we can thank organized labour. Workers who go out on strike should never have to see their colleagues crossing a picket line to continue to support the unfair practices of an employer when a union is in a legal strike position.

With that, I would like to thank the House for its time and allow the Green Party to go on record as being strongly in favour of Bill C-58 and strongly in favour of improving it and strengthening it in committee.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Green Party for her support of this bill. I wonder if the hon. member could talk a bit more about the maintenance of activities agreement that is proposed in this bill, whereby we would be working with the Canada Industrial Relations Board prior to any strike action to establish what maintenance activities are required for safety or environmental protection. This goal of having prior agreements would also help us to have fewer strikes, and shorter strikes if they do occur.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are reasonable elements to the proposition that before a strike there is an agreement on what is absolutely necessary to take place, but I am concerned by the criticisms from Unifor, the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers and others that these represent potential loopholes. I would want to make sure that in expert evidence in committee it is absolutely nailed down that such provisions do not constitute loopholes that weaken the rights of workers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I have the utmost respect for the member opposite, I want to clarify something for her. In my riding, with respect to the Stellantis deal and the 1,600 replacement Korean workers, workers went to see what was being done. It is carbon steel welding, which all of the welders in my riding can do, so it actually is replacement workers, which is contrary to what the members opposite would say.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. I respect so much her pioneering work in engineering, but I went to law school. It does not mean I know more, but I do know that replacement workers are one thing only: In trade union relations and collective bargaining, replacement workers are scab workers, not workers who come from another country who do work Canadians could otherwise do.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I am not surprised that she supports the bill, because she is a woman with progressive values who generally supports this type of bill. We are very pleased to hear that, because, as we know, the Bloc Québécois is strongly in favour of this bill.

During her speech, I also appreciated her recognition of Quebec's pioneering role in this type of legislation. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation like this for 47 years and, since then, there have been two classes of workers in Quebec due to the federal jurisdiction we are trying to get rid of. We will get it done. We led the way for dental care, pharmacare and child care. Canada is taking its cue from Quebec, and that is a good thing; it makes us happy.

When Canada draws inspiration from Quebec like this, does my colleague not think that Canada should also not undermine Quebec by recognizing it and giving it its money? That does not apply to anti-scab legislation, but it will apply to dental care and pharmacare, because the new federal program will bring in another structure and undermine existing structures in Quebec.

With all due respect, does she not think the government should give Quebec the money it is owed and create programs for Canada? Obviously, we will be voting in favour of this, as long as it does not hurt Quebec.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague. I completely agree with him, except for one thing. The rest of Canada is in dire need of pharmacare.

If there is a problem with the money between the province and the federal government, we have to figure that out. I do not want to, at this point, say that absolutely Quebec's approach should be protected in terms of the money, because we will get a better deal in pharmacare when there is one buyer, a single payer, that can drive down the price of pharmaceuticals.

I would also like to congratulate Quebec for being a pioneer in the fight against climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, anti-scab legislation is necessary and we need to get on board. The NDP has tried to move it forward eight times in the last 15 years, and finally the moment has arrived.

One of the issues we have concerns with is that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. However, this is what we have. On the implementation date in the legislation, it is extremely long, at 18 months. Does the member think that needs to be shortened?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, to my friend from Vancouver East, absolutely, 18 months is too long. It makes no sense. Let us get that fixed in committee.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join in the debate in the House on a matter of great significance for our workforce and the future of collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector.

Bill C-58 is an essential piece of legislation that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012. At the core of Bill C-58 is the commitment to create a fair, collective bargaining process by introducing a ban on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs, during strikes or lockouts.

The implications of this legislation are far-reaching, touching the core of the relationship between employers and workers during labour disputes. What makes Bill C-58 particularly noteworthy is the extensive collaboration with the labour movement, exemplified by the dedicated work of organizations such as the Durham Regional Labour Council in my riding. The involvement of these councils, representing the interests and concerns of workers, has been instrumental in shaping the provisions of this bill. The Durham Regional Labour Council, along with other labour organizations, has a long history of being a vocal advocate for fair treatment of workers and the regulation of replacement workers.

Through a series of consultations, discussions and negotiations, the labour movement has played a crucial role in influencing the content and scope of Bill C-58. The goal has been to strike a balance between the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining and the operational needs of employers, especially during critical periods of labour disputes. This collaborative process has strengthened the bill significantly, demonstrating what can be achieved when diverse voices, especially those representing the labour movement, actively engage in the legislative process. The provisions within this bill reflect a balanced approach, acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of both workers and employers.

As Teamsters Canada president, François Laporte, put it, “This is a big step forward for workers.” Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, which represents the thousands of skilled tradespeople at GM's Oshawa assembly plant, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”. To quote our labour minister, “Our economy depends on employers and workers negotiating an agreement at the table”. That is what this legislation does. It provides a framework such that employers, along with workers and their unions, will be able to negotiate better deals at the table.

The legislation is a response to the acknowledgement that the right to strike can be undermined when employers resort to the use of replacement workers, perpetuating imbalances between workers and employers. The ban proposed in this bill would be a crucial step toward fostering a healthier workplace and strengthening the rights of employees in federally regulated private sectors by prohibiting employers from using new hires or contractors to perform the work of unionized employees who are on strike or locked out. Furthermore, it would prevent employers from allowing employees in a bargaining unit to work during a full strike affecting the entire unit. The ban would not be absolute, but it is carefully crafted to allow certain exceptions.

The Government of Canada respects the right to strike, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, all governments also have a responsibility to make sure strikes and lockouts do not risk the health and safety of the public. To protect the public, the rules of engagement require employers and unions to continue providing certain essential services during strikes and lockouts. Employers can use replacement workers if it is necessary to prevent threats to life, health or safety; the destruction or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. This measured approach would strike a balance between protecting workers' rights and ensuring the essential functioning of businesses in exceptional circumstances.

To enforce the ban, the bill would empower unions to appeal to the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believed an employer was violating the ban. This independent administrative tribunal has the authority to investigate complaints and, if found valid, order the employer to cease the violation. Furthermore, the bill introduces a maximum fine of $100,000 per day for employers convicted of violating the prohibition, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence.

Bill C-58 would also set clear timelines requiring parties involved in a strike or lockout to come to an agreement within 15 days after notice to bargain collectively. This agreement would outline what activities, if any, need to be maintained during the work stoppage to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public. If parties cannot reach an agreement, they can apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to arbitrate a settlement. The board would be obligated to make a decision within 90 days and could expedite proceedings if necessary. The bill would mandate that parties must have an agreement or a board decision in place before issuing the required 72-hour notice for a strike or a lockout.

The rationale behind Bill C-58 is grounded in the recognition that the ability to form a union, bargain collectively and strike is fundamental to a healthy workforce and democracy. The prohibition of replacement workers would be a critical step toward preserving the integrity of the right to strike, ensuring that workers could act collectively without facing the threat of immediate replacement.

The ban on replacement workers would be a positive economic move. It would promote stability, certainty and better collective agreements by preventing the distraction from the bargaining table that could otherwise prolong disputes and negatively impact workplace dynamics for years. By addressing these challenges head-on, Bill C-58 aims to create an environment conducive to constructive labour relations and economic prosperity.

In conclusion, Bill C-58 represents a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to enhance the collective bargaining process in federally regulated private sectors. By introducing a ban on replacement workers and improving the collective bargaining process, the legislation aims to strike a balance between workers' rights and the essential functioning of businesses.

Let us all remain focused on the overarching goal, which is to create a fairer and more equitable collective bargaining landscape. Bill C-58 is a step toward achieving this goal. Together we can build a future where the rights of workers are protected and our economy thrives on the principles of fairness and cooperation.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP is very proud of the work we have done on the bill, but I do have some serious concerns.

I know that in my riding, in Comox, search and rescue helicopters are flown by our forces members, but the maintenance and upkeep of those helicopters has been contracted out to IMP Aerospace, which is a private company. We are now seeing substantial staffing shortages due to low wages, and just to be clear with the member and with the Chair, they are between $10 and $20 less than the average standard for the industry. Workers are really having a hard time making sure that they keep everything safe, but they are working overtime to make sure our military people are safe.

I am wondering how it is possible that they are told, with 46 workers, that they cannot strike because they are considered essential. Now they are down to just over 20 workers, with only 16 of them able to work right now. This is a contract that National Defence has agreed to. Why is the government not protecting its workers through this contract?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot profess to know the particulars the member opposite is referring to, but I think it is a good-faith question, and I appreciate that from her. I always appreciated the member's work on the procedure and House affairs committee when we served on it together. I would be happy to look into the matter. I cannot say that I know enough about the details, and I would need to clarify some of them before I could undertake to answer the question. I do not want to give her an answer that is just for the sake of it; I would rather give a legitimate response.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the government's departments. It has a whole IT department. It has a whole procurement department that outsources and that looks for help if it needs it. Therefore, with respect to the ArriveCAN app, I want to know why the government decided to outsource the procurement of IT when it has a whole IT department and a whole procurement department.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I see the relevance to the particular bill we are focused on, but perhaps I can speak to one of the questions that has come up: Why does this not include the public sector? I think the reason is that this is a particular set of amendments to the Labour Code, which is not the Public Service Act; it is another act. My understanding is that the public sector unions have agreements with the federal government to ensure that during any labour disputes, essential services are able to be provided and that Canadians do not see any interruption in those essential services. My understanding is that public sector unions do not use replacement workers.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a rather direct question for my colleague.

Does the 18-month delay his government included in the legislation not bother him?

That is more time than this government has left, those 18 months before implementation. We are all aware that there could be a change in government before the legislation takes effect. However, this is a fundamental law. We are talking about defending the rights of workers. In Quebec, we have been doing that since 1977. Canada is already way behind.

Could this not be done more quickly? I would like the member to explain to me why there is a delay.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish my French were good enough for me to respond in French.

The 18-month timeline of coming into force is something that was debated, that we did work on and that we felt unions and labour organizations, as well as employers, needed as the runway to adapt, because this is would be a really significant change. It would be arguably one of the biggest changes in terms of collective bargaining in Canadian history. I would say that it merits a bit of a runway for organizations to adapt and get ready, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs time as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago I had a meeting with Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who expressed concerns over the legislation. I spoke to him about how we have developed the legislation. One of his concerns was the consultation process that was used.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary could highlight how the legislation was developed in concert with union and business.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate Perrin Beatty's interventions and sometimes his critiques of the work of our government. I find his comments very helpful.

Just to clarify, my understanding is that there were 57 stakeholder organizations that came together at five round tables, where labour organizations and unions sat down with major employers. The sectors that were represented were the telecommunications sector; air, marine and rail transportation sectors; and courier and postal services sectors. They, as well as all of the major unions, all participated in the round tables. There were 71 written submissions, 45 personal stories, individual comments and then a “What We Heard” report, which was published.

All of the work of proper consultation was done in the lead-up to the tabling of Bill C-58. That is why the bill is so significant.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber as I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

This bill would, of course, amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code and the industrial board regulations to prohibit the use of replacement workers, and improve the process of protecting against the immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during a legal strike or lockout. More specifically, the bill would prohibit employers from using new hires or contractors to replace striking workers. In addition, they also could not use members of the very same bargaining unit that was on strike or in a lockout position.

There are two exceptions provided for in the bill. First, employers would be able to use those replacement workers in the strike or lockdown if it was necessary to protect life, health or safety; protect against destruction or damage to the employer's property or premises; or to protect against serious environmental damage affecting those premises. Second, employers could use employees within the bargaining unit to prevent that same list of circumstances that I just outlined.

When I commute to Ottawa, I fly in to and out of Windsor. My flight path almost always takes me, depending on which way the wind blows, over the new battery plant being built in Windsor, the Stellantis plant. In fact, on Friday, a few days ago, I toured one of the buildings of this new plant with the leader of the official opposition and my friend, the member for Essex. This building was being erected by a local third-generation, family-owned construction company, Rosati, with a strong, unionized, industrious local workforce.

I find it a bit ironic that we are debating this legislation today, Bill C-58, when the government committed $15 billion of Canadian taxpayer funds for a battery plant that is hiring foreign replacement workers. We can make the argument that this is not the very same worker. The point is, this is $15 billion of taxpayer funds. That is going to cost every family in Canada $1,000, while leaving our union workers out in the cold. We can debate the semantics of whether that is a replacement worker or not.

I also find it ironic that this legislation would not ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, but this legislation is not being extended to the public sector unions. In those situations, the federal government is a party to the negotiation process. Is that not a bit curious?

Last November, we also learned that the Liberals are allowing companies like NextStar and Northvolt to bring in hundreds of foreign workers to help build electric vehicles in Windsor and Quebec. Not surprisingly, the government has received major pushback from our unions on this. Sean Strickland, the executive director from Canada's Building Trades Unions, has called the situation unconscionable. He said that bringing in 900 foreign workers is well beyond the standards his organization has ever seen.

Conservatives will always stand up for Canadian workers. In fact, we tabled a motion in November at the House's government operations committee to compel the government to be transparent with Canadians once and for all, and publish the contracts for the two battery plant deals, as well as the three others that have received a promise of federal subsidies. Of course, Liberal members on the committee objected.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle compared this situation to shareholders demanding to hold a company's CEO accountable. By shareholders here, of course we mean the Canadian taxpayers. By the company's CEO, we mean the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, “foreign replacement workers coming to Canada, thanks to taxpayer subsidies, is of interest not just to the workers in the area but to every single Canadian family whose tax bill is underwriting this.”

A further example of taxpayers underwriting government overspending is, of course, the arrive scam app. It gave a $20-million contract to GC Strategies, a two-person IT firm, though it might be four people but that does not really matter, which does no actual IT work. The government cannot confirm how much the company has received. We have learned that GC Strategies has received a quarter of a billion dollars in consulting contracts since 2015.

Why did the Prime Minister not go out and hire another 600 border guards to address the car theft we are experiencing, or the import of handguns or drugs from across the border? That would have been $60 billion far better spent. It has never been more clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

I am a Conservative, so I believe that the market mechanism is the most efficient means by which to transfer the value of goods and services. Services include things like the labour that is required in almost every sector of our economy. However, markets only function best and are sustainable over time when there is a balance of power across the negotiating table where these goods and services are being established. Too much power on one side or the other distorts the process, leads to unfair outcomes and is not sustainable over time. Collective bargaining is one such structure that has developed over time to bring some balance to the negotiating table. It is obviously used in many sectors of our economy.

Prior to being elected, I served and participated in a form of such bargaining on behalf of processing vegetable producers in annual negotiations with processors to establish pre-plant contracts for the terms and conditions of sale for a particular vegetable crop each and every season. Do members know what? We did not always agree. Then, a strike or a lockout really was not an option for either the processors or the growers as it is Mother Nature who dictates, through the seasonality of our Canadian climate, when the crops need to be planted and harvested. The certainty of a pre-plant contract was vital for both processors and producers so that they were assured of a supply for the processors and of the opportunity of a fair return for the producers. Therefore, an alternate form of dispute resolution needed to be found in the event of contract negotiations not being agreed upon by the pre-approved deadline.

For many years, the industry used the final offer selection arbitration process as this dispute settling mechanism and, as unpleasant as any arbitration ever is, the system worked and worked well for many years for several reasons. The first is that it was fair.

Second,it worked well because it drove good negotiations, which I believe is the goal of all processes to establish fair values, be it for a tomato crop or for an hourly wage. In the event that two parties to a contract talk could not agree by a specified predetermined time, they flipped final offers. At that time, both parties submitted their final offer to an arbitrator or to a panel of arbitrators of all the outstanding disputed items in the contract. Some time after a period of conciliation or mediation, an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators had to pick, and here is the key, one party's position in its entirety. They could not “split the baby in half”.

Herein lies the beauty of the system. If either party submitted an unreasonable or indefensible position, even on one particular aspect of the contract, it risked the arbitrator picking the other party's position. Therefore, in effect, the final offer selection process drives good negotiations to settle at the table where the best agreements are always made, rather than risk an arbitration process.

Let me be clear. Canadian workers have the right to collectively bargain and to determine fair value for their work, and it is inevitable that not all such bargaining situations will end in an immediate agreement. Bill C-58 sets out one option in the event that a strike situation occurs. Of course, unions will argue that the option for replacement workers tips the balance of power too much toward the employers, while employers will state that the lack of such an option will lengthen strikes and jeopardize so much of the critical facets of our economy, thus hurting the Canadian public.

In another setting, I have personally experienced a different option: final offer arbitration. That has worked to settle disputes and has allowed crops to be planted and harvested on time without disrupting or losing a season. Improved labour relations should be the goal of any and every government, and having good labour relations is ultimately what is best for our country, for our workers and for our employers.

I look forward to the continuation of the debate to see if Bill C-58 is the right tool in the right circumstances. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with final offer selection. It was a topic of great debate from about 1988-91 in the Manitoba legislature. We had a sunset clause on final offer selection legislation. It was ultimately a compromise by the then NDP premier Howard Pawley that, as opposed to bringing in anti-scab legislation, we had final offer selection. It is an interesting story, but I do not have enough time to talk about it.

I am very much interested in the member's position on this legislation. Does he support the legislation going to committee?