Réal Ménard

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

As the hon. member for Lévis said, more so the people opposite. The Just for Laughs festival has a budget of $10 million, of which $1 million is provided by sponsorship. The summer festival in Quebec City has a budget of $4.5 million, of which $500,000 comes from sponsorship. Is there a nicer area than the capital of Quebec to spend your summer? Every summer, I make a point of spending a few days there, meeting different people and enjoying varied activities.

We must set the record straight. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the parliamentary secretary, who is here in the House, that we support any measure that will reduce smoking.

I have never smoked and I have tried to convince my close relatives to stop smoking. Let me thank my mother and father who stopped smoking two years ago. It is not easy to stop smoking, because there is a dependency involved. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot stopped smoking four years ago. In our environment, we know of individuals who have succeeded, and they are to be cited as examples.

We know that nicotine creates a dependency. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata reminded us that manufacturers, producers have played on this dependency; this clearly shows that it is not easy to stop smoking. Smoking is a plague that causes intoxication.

It is all fine and well to be concerned about it in terms of health, but for goodness sake we should not try to solve a problem by creating another one. The minister will find the official opposition supportive, in matters of public health needs, but we ask him to provide for transition mechanisms and to help the industry by making available to it some other mechanism whereby the activities can continue. I think this is reasonable.

If this bill is passed, Montreal will go through another economic crisis, and we have a duty to deny our support to anything that could lead to that.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

I say it again, he is always welcome in Montreal.

As you know the sponsoring industry is one that plans ahead. We are not talking about short term planning, a few weeks ahead of time. To give you an idea of the order of magnitude we are talking about, the tobacco industry sponsors a number of sports and cultural events to the tune of close to $60 million.

If the government had been serious, if it had behaved professionally, if it had been consistent in its objectives-there might well exist a link between smoking and advertising on the site of sports events, but what we are saying is that, at the moment, it has not been rigorously proven. This link has not been scientifically established. Although we might suspect there is one.

Just imagine if, as legislators, we were to pass legislation on the basis of approximations, speculations, without sufficient data to support the measures. We are now presented with a bill which, ultimately, could put several sports and cultural events at risk. Why are we concerned? I am concerned first of all as a Montrealer. I think it bears reminding that there are some institutional partners who usually do not dabble in politics. As we speak, there is great effervescence in Montreal. People are in the streets. Not only are they marching, they have the support of several extremely important partners. I am thinking for example of the Convention and Tourism Bureau of Greater Montreal.

The convention and tourism bureau's mandate is to promote tourist activities, not public health. It is not an agency operating in Parliament. Why did it find it appropriate to break silence and join the people who, a few minutes ago, decided to close their businesses and take to the streets of Montreal? It decided to keep silent, but at the same time, to speak volumes down in the street, because this bill is unreasonable.

It is not unreasonable from a public health perspective. Of course we are in favour of any measure aimed at reducing tobacco use. However, for a democrat, the end never justifies the means. It is not true that in order to fight against smoking we have to threaten whole areas of our cultural industry.

Why did the government not provide for a transition period? Why did it not propose some financial compensation? It is too easy to ban, to prohibit without guaranteeing that it will not have a major financial impact.

The jazz festival is an international event. People from all corners of the world come to Montreal to listen to jazz music because that festival's reputation is well established. Out of the festival's total budget of $9.5 million, approximately $2 million come from tobacco sponsorships.

Parliament is not the only place there are fireworks you know; the Benson and Hedges international fireworks competition draws an international jury. I think the parliamentary secretary is well aware of that reality. There is a budget of $1.4 million for the fireworks, of which $1 million comes from sponsorship.

Then there is the Just for Laughs festival, of which Les parlementeries are obviously the finest example; a number of hon. members in this House should stand for election to that bogus parliament: they would surely win.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out some very sad facts about Parliament. I note that, in the case of such an important bill, it does not matter what our viewpoint is, we are in Parliament, and in a democracy the best way to oppose an idea is to propose a better one. Today, however, we can take no pride in the fact that the government and the members opposite chose an authoritarian and dictatorial measure that provides very little for freedom of ideas and discussion: the guillotine.

I would like to remind our viewers of what a guillotine means in parliamentary terms. Applying a guillotine limits the time for the proceedings. At the end of the time set aside for debate, whether all the members wishing to speak have spoken or not, the question is put.

The issue of tobacco and its relationship to public health is a complex one. I think our colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata summed it up well when she said that we in the official opposition

support the objectives sought in general terms, we support about 80 per cent of them.

Bills have objectives and this is why we asked those drafting them to follow policy and use legal terminology in wording the objectives. We agree that it is unacceptable, in 1997, for some 40,000 people to take up smoking, which will ultimately kill them.

We are also aware that smoking is more than just a personal responsibility. If smoking were merely a personal matter, the lawmaker would probably not be concerned and we would not be having today's debate. We also recognize that the community has a responsibility, because the health system pays out hundreds of millions of dollars.

However, there is a discrepancy between the objectives and the means proposed to achieve them. Not only is there a discrepancy, but there is somewhat of a paradox in the fact that the government, while trying to solve a problem, or at least while trying to contribute to solving it, is going to jeopardize major sports and cultural events.

I believe one cannot remain unaffected by what is going on in this industry. I will take Montreal as an example. As you know, Montreal is a favourite venue for cultural and sports events. It is a well known fact. Indeed I believe the member for Saint-Hyacinthe is an avid consumer. In the summer he can be seen wearing a T-shirt and bermuda shorts, casual and yet serious, attending the jazz festival, the Francopholies, and what not. I believe he does not miss any.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 36 the following new Clause:

"48.1 Section 108 of the Act is repealed."

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with my Reform colleague's speech on one point, the fact that our amendment concerning replacement workers says a lot about the kind of party we are.

We must admit that there is a lack of courage on the government side, since this does take courage. When government members were in the opposition, they were vociferous, they spared no energy, no word was strong enough to demand provisions prohibiting replacement workers.

Of the Reform Party we must say that it is not courage it lacks, but sensitivity. If it had not been for the Bloc Quebecois, this issue would not have been raised during today's debate.

The issue of replacement workers is not a recent concern for the Bloc Quebecois. The member for Richelieu introduced a private member's bill dealing with this very thing. The member for Bourassa and the member for Saint-Laurent followed suit.

It is incredible that we still have to justify, to explain why antiscab legislation, which prohibits the use of replacement workers, is an element of paramount importance to the balance we must always strive for in labour relations.

Why is a piece of legislation banning the use of replacement workers so important? Because it has to do with the violence and the length of labour disputes. Recently I looked at some statistics compiled by a professor of industrial relations regarding the bill passed in 1977 in Quebec. I had to laugh when the minister told us in committee that since there was no consensus we could not proceed. Do you think for one moment that there was a consensus in Quebec in 1977 when the government of René Lévesque, a most courageous man, decided to go ahead? Of course not.

Contrary to some of my colleagues, I was not very old in those days. If you recall, in 1977, when the Lévesque government went ahead with this, the Conseil du patronat threatened to go to court, the Liberal Party believed that it would be the first shot in a civil war. There was an atmosphere of fear that was nurtured by some very specific, clear-cut groups, whose immediate interest it served.

But once the Liberals were in office, do you think they challenged the antiscab legislation? Of course not. They realized it could not only make disputes more civilized, but also allow some kind of balance to be struck.

It takes some doing to come and tell us today that they could not go ahead because there was no consensus, because the necessary conditions were not met.

If this government had had the courage of its convictions and had stood by the positions taken when it sat on this side of the House, it would have endorsed the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. But it is not going to happen now because, on this issue as on many others, the members opposite lack the political courage required to take a position of their own.

A study conducted by a number of industrial relations experts shows that, Quebec in particular, but three other provinces as well, still have, for the most part, antiscab provisions. There was Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario. This meant that 50 per cent of Canada's labour force was protected by antiscab legislation.

When there are laws such as the ones I am describing, conflicts are resolved more quickly. This goes without saying, because the legislation forces the parties to negotiate. It also results in less violence. In those provinces where there are antiscab laws, the duration of conflicts was, on average, 35 per cent shorter than elsewhere. This means something after all. Yet, this Parliament still refuses to accept Quebec's position, which could have been beneficial to all workers.

What is worse is the hybrid, half-baked formula being proposed by the government, which thinks that the Canada Labour Relations Board will have to develop regulations and guidelines that woul allow it, when the union's representation duty will be undermined, to issue an order providing that replacement workers cannot be used.

We cannot imagine a more weird and crazy scenario than the one proposed by the government. At what point will it be determined that a union's ability to represent its members has been undermined? Is the objective to prohibit the use of replacement workers? This is absolutely crazy. It does not make any sense. No witness said anything of the sort. Could the minister tell us who, among university professors, unions, militants and workers, supported such a solution? Of course not, because it is a hybrid solution where one tries to play both ends against the middle, as is too often the case with the legislation put forward by the government.

It is rather disappointing and we would have liked for the government to take into consideration what is being done in the Province of Quebec, where section 109 of the Quebec Labour Code recognizes as an unfair practice the use of replacement workers by an employer. The Canada Labour Code clearly defines what is an unfair practice. An unfair practice, as defined, is an allegation that an employer, a trade union or an individual has taken part in an activity that is prohibited pursuant to the Canada Labour Code. And then a number of examples are given. At least six of them are traditionally linked to unfair practices.

Section 24 stipulates that no employer shall, after notification that the application for certification has been made, alter the conditions of employment, since this is considered an unfair practice. To negotiate in bad faith is clearly an unfair practice. We saw, closer to home, that such a recourse can be used. In the dispute opposing them to Air Canada and national airlines, regional carriers Air BC, Air Nova, Air Ontario and Air Alliance invoked section 50 in referring to the last negotiations.

A third example is employer interference in union business. It is also prohibited as an unfair practice.

For the union, failure to provide fair representation can be cause for legal action, as can failure to provide members with financial statements, although a bit unusual, and a certain number of prohibitions set out in section 95.

Since our historic entry into the House of Commons-and you will not often see an official opposition as dynamic as the one before you-we have made representations to successive labour ministers in order to ensure that our message is heard. One day, we will leave this Parliament and we will speak as equals within a true partnership. We would have liked, as a team of parliamentarians, to be able to say with pride that one of the contributions we made to this debate, a milestone in our time as the Bloc Quebecois team in the House of Commons, has been to convince English Canada and the government of the need to make labour relations more civilized and to adopt anti-scab legislation.

We are not admitting defeat. There are still a few weeks left before we are, perhaps, able to ask Quebecers once again for their vote. There will be another referendum, that is certain. I see the member from British Columbia, who has very definite ideas on a number of topics I would prefer not to get into. I can and I wish to tell her personally not to force me to go door to door in her riding. She knows very well that I am particularly fond of Vancouver.

I do not know if this is a human being in front of me. I heard loud shouts coming awfully close-

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 33 the following:

"42.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 94:

94.1(1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, thereby undermining a trade union's representational capacity, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and who was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.

(2) The use by an employer of the services of a person described in subsection (1) is deemed to undermine the trade union's representational capacity.

(3) Where a trade union alleges that an employer has contravened subsection (1), the burden of proof that the use by the employer of the services of a person described in subsection (1) does not undermine the trade union's representational capacity is on the employer.

(4) In any case arising under section 87.4, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and who was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out."

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 29 the following:

"(9) Nothing in this section authorizes an employer to use the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit at the commencement of the strike or lock- out to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out."

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I really want those who are following what we are doing to realize that, with the amendments proposed by the Reform Party-and I am not using any euphemisms, it is not a figure of style, I mean it literally-we are faced with amendments aimed at reducing the workers' right to strike. We would not have believed it possible for clauses of this nature to be brought forward.

For purely instructional reasons-I cannot be other than instructional since I am next to the hon. member for Rimouski-Temiscouata, who is a teacher-I would simply like to review for those who are following the debate just what is involved.

Clause 87.7(1) of the bill concerns access and services to grain vessels. The entire question of western grain, as we are all aware, even without any connection to the west, is of absolutely vital importance. This is a key sector of the economy.

What the legislator is giving here is a balanced point of view, one which, in committee-and I believe I am correct in saying this-even the ports people, the national stevedoring committee, indicated that they were somewhat in favour of the obligation, the maintaining of this obligation, to load vessels.

To quote the clause in question more precisely: "During a work stoppage, an employer in the long-shoring industry or other port industry, or its employees, shall continue to provide the services they normally provide to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a port". It is understood that this is where shipping for export is involved, where anticipated high and low demand is a sensitive issue, so it makes sense to maintain such an obligation. I repeat, this clause in Bill C-66 was favourably received by the workers concerned.

A little further it says that unless the parties otherwise agree, rates of pay or any other terms or conditions of employment of the employees assigned to grain vessels during a strike are those provided in the previous collective agreement. I repeat, this is a wise provision.

And finally, on application by one of the parties or on referral by the minister, the board may make any order it considers appropriate to ensure compliance with that subsection. We are told that this new provision implements the proposal by the task force to include such a requirement in the labour code to prevent successive interruptions of grain exports as a result of work stoppages by employers and employees in a port.

Two years ago we, as parliamentarians, experienced the impact of a work stoppage involving the grain industry and the ports.

To avoid repeated work stoppages that can have a serious economic impact without depriving people of their right to strike, we agree with the proposed procedure.

We were surprised, however, to see that in the amendments proposed by the Reform Party, the reference was no longer to grain vessels but to all vessels. As though potash, uranium, steel, newsprint, recycled materials, bulk commodities, spices, and so

forth, should be treated exactly the same way. As though all export or shipping traffic should be treated the same way as the grain sector.

This is frivolous, and it is an unjustified restriction of the right to strike. Several times witnesses, especially for the employer side, came to tell us that we, as parliamentarians, should agree to expand the provisions significantly beyond grain vessels, and every time the official opposition said that this was impossible, that we did not think it was desirable or reasonable.

What reasons does the Reform Party have for wishing to restrict the right to strike or to expand the obligation to provide loading services? We agree with the provisions in the bill that say that in the case of grain vessels, nothing should be allowed to interrupt the loading, tie-up and let-go of grain vessels.

We cannot agree with that, and we cannot agree to generalize the provision contained in Bill C-66.

To do so would impose restrictions on and considerably undermine the rights of workers, and we do not want to be associated with such a process. I believe we will have a chance to see and comment on the scope of the Reform Party's amendments when we consider the next group of amendments, which deal with replacement workers.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by a ) replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 33 with the following: d .1) where the requirement of subsection 89(1) has been met, cancel or'' b ) replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 33 with the following: d .2) where the requirement of subsection 89(1) has been met and the''

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 35 with the following:

"was entitled before the requirement of subsection 89(1) was met;"

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you realize it, but we are coming to an extremely crucial and decisive point in today's debate. Until now, we were tempted to be indulgent and conciliatory, but I ask the government to take note that we are entering a period during which we will toughen our stand.

There are limits to what the official opposition can put up with. We may live in a society of law, we may be civilized people, we may believe in the virtues of dialogue, but the fact remains that the government has gone too far. It has gone much farther than what the official opposition can ever put up with. Here I want to directly address, through you, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary.

The first irritant, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary fully understands what we are talking about, is the 72 hour prior notice, an expression that means something important. Imagine, this takes the form of an obligation. We do not know where this came from, because it was not in the old labour code and, to our knowledge, and we were watchful, this was not asked for by the witnesses.

Moreover, I saw in the ministerial notes that were communicated to us that it is claimed to be a consensus in the Sim report. I hope the government will be able to give us some sources, some evidence, because we will be in the unfortunate obligation to question the integrity, I would even say, the honesty of the government, with regard to its assessment of consensus.

I would like to make a demonstration that will have an premise, a development and a conclusion, as we were taught in the good old days of classical college. Starting from the beginning, I will try to describe the process to you.

Fourth months before the expiry of a collective agreement, because this is always what we are talking about ultimately, it is possible to produce a notice, an intent to bargain, which we call a notice to bargain. In the previous code, it was three months, with Bill C-66, it is four. Therefore, the parties must bargain. Of course, we then understand that there either is an agreement or there is not.

When there is no agreement on the items discussed in the bargaining process, the labour minister is first of all notified that there is no agreement, and then he has a number of courses of action. However, the major new element-and this was something the parties had been asking for-is that the conciliation process can be used only once. This new element means that it will no longer be possible to have two stages in the conciliation process.

Do you follow, Mr. Speaker? I am trying to give a clear lecture, and I will to do so till the end.

A notice to bargain is delivered four months before the expiry of the term of the collective agreement. Either there is an agreement or there is not. When no agreement can be reached, a notice of dispute is delivered. After this notice is delivered, sixty days must go by. This is a maximum, unless, by an exceptional procedure, the parties agree otherwise. During that period, the minister appoints an arbitrator, a conciliation commissioner, a conciliation board or an arbitration board.

Also, a report has always to be tabled. Either there is an agreement or there is not. The parties are brought together. The process is well known. The thing that we must keep in mind, as members of Parliament, is that legislators provide for a sixty day period as a maximum. Again, this is unless, by an exceptional procedure, which is not the conventional procedure, the parties agree on a longer period.

If there is no agreement, and it has happened in the past, in Parliament, and in the private sector, during negotiations, there is a 14 day cooling off period, after which the union regains the right to strike. We cannot emphasize enough that strikes carry a price. It is the last resort, the most meaningful one, and workers do not make use of it before all the other options have been exhausted.

Nobody will go on strike before all other alternatives have been exhausted. You are aware of that, Mr. Speaker, even if you tend to be rather conservative. Everybody in the labour relations community knows that. Witnesses have reminded us of that.

Unions have the right to strike once the minister has ruled that the parties are free to exercise their right to strike or to lock out. During a strike, essential services have to be maintained according to the board's orders. But we have here a gap in the process, something that baffles the mind. It is hard to understand the minister's reasoning. Why is it necessary to have a 72 hour notice when it is the Minister of Labour himself, the very Sicilian member for Saint-Léonard, who releases the parties? Parties are free to act only by ministerial consent. How is this a useful addition to the process?

The parties told us in committee that, during the period between the notice of a labour dispute and the time the right to strike is regained, they want to be able, but not forced, to conduct intensive negotiations.

There is a number of tools and options the Minister of Labour can use. For instance, the minister can appoint a conciliation officer or a mediation officer, or opt for a conciliation board or a mediation board.

Mr. Speaker, a gentleman as vigilant as you are must have realized by now that the 72-hour subterfuge, since there are no other words to describe it, is in fact nothing more than a tactic used to weaken the relationship of power. We know full well that this compulsory advance notice gives the opposing party the opportunity to get organized.

Really, it is all in very poor taste. It is incomprehensible. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the NDP supports the position and amendment of the Bloc Quebecois. I must say that we are stunned and dismayed, because, until now, the process had been pretty well received. First, the negotiation process was shortened, because there was only one step left, and it made sense to have a little more time before the expiration notice. Once the notice to bargain was given, the two parties would start to talk to each other and, if no agreement was reached, the 60-day period kicked in and that period of time gave the minister a number of possibilities. In the end, if still no agreement could be reached, the ultimate option had to be considered. And that ultimate option was a strike. Previously, the cooling-off period lasted 7 days; it now is 14 days. But overall, the witnesses did not seem to be against this process. It was pretty well received, but everything is spoiled now.

In fact, I am trying to contain myself, because this 14-day period will turn into a 21-day period according to another amendment included in another group of motions.

I really do not know what the minister was thinking when he came up with these amendments that are not needed to ensure the balance we used to have and that was well received.

We are concerned about the 72-hour period, because-and I will end on this note-72 hours are enough to weaken a relationship of power that took years to build.

We cannot talk about labour relations without mentioning the balance of power that constantly shifts between the union and management.

I will repeat it without any shame-you know that I am a straight talker-72 hours' advance notice is in very bad taste. The parliamentary secretary would gain in stature if he accepted to intercede with the Minister of Labour. Incidentally, we would like to have our greetings passed on to the minister, because we know that he is very interested in our work here. Everybody knows that.

Through you, I would have only one word of advice for the parliamentary secretary and that would be to make aggressive representations and use all his well known speaking skills to ask the government to remove this clause because it completely upsets the balance the bill had almost reached. Without the 72 hours, the process would have been rather well accepted by the parties.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-66, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 42 on page 31 with the following:

"39. (1) Subsection 89(1) is replaced by the following:

1. (1) No employer shall declare or cause a lockout and no trade union shall declare or authorize a strike unless the employer or trade union has given notice to bargain collectively under this Part.

(2) Paragraph 89(2) (b) of the Act is replaced by the following: b ) the requirement of subsection (1) has been met in respect of the bargaining unit of which the employee is a member.''