Réal Ménard

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 36 on page 26.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 44 on page 26.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 27.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 17 on page 27.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 25 with the following:

"notice to the employer indicating the date on which"

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 5and 6 on page 26 with the following:

"notice to the trade union indicating the date on which"

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 26 with the following:

"subsection (1) or (2), a new notice need not be given by the trade"

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-66, In Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 44 on page 26 and lines 1 to 17 on page 27.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

I felt some disbelief on your part Mr. Speaker, but I do want you to know that I only have friends in this House.

The parliamentary secretary implied that Motion No. 14 moved by the official opposition, which derives from section 50 of the Quebec labour code, as I explained, is a clause providing for tacit reconduction of any collective agreement coming to an end so that it remains in force until a new agreement is signed. It is also known as an evergreen clause.

If the interpreters did justice to what the parliamentary secretary meant, he told us that these provisions already exist in the labour code and that all collective agreements are deemed to remain in force until such time as a new agreement comes into effect.

Is the parliamentary secretary still saying that the amendment we proposed is useless because the collective agreement remains in force and because there already is a tacit reconduction clause? Would he be willing to table, for the benefit of the official opposition, the legal opinion which supports this point of view, because it does not agree with testimony given by witnesses we heard in committee.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the parliamentary secretary may have unwittingly misled the House. I would like to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 19 the following new Clause:

"25.1 Section 52 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) The rationale for the change mentioned in paragraph (3)( c ) shall include an analysis of the cost of the change, the benefits expected of the change, the effect on the organization of the work place and the proposed time schedule for implementation.

(3.2) The employer shall give the bargaining agent sufficient time to enable the bargaining agent to assess the information provided and shall supply any additional information and technological and financial explanation that the bargaining agent reasonably requests to facilitate the assessment.

(3.3) No alteration may be made to the terms and conditions or security of employment of an employee as a result of technological change unless the employer has complied with this section and an agreement on the alteration has been reached between the bargaining agent and the employer."

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 21 the following new Clause:

"29.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 68:

68.1 If a collective agreement expires and no new agreement has been made between the employer and the bargaining agent, the terms and conditions in the expired agreement shall continue to apply to the employees in the bargaining unit until a new agreement has been made."

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 32 with the following: c ) expresses a personal point of view, other than during the period an application for certification as a bargaining agent is being determined by the Board pursuant to sections 28 to 47, so''

Madam Speaker, Group No. 5 refers to three types of amendments. The first consideration relates to technological change, the second to a clause inspired by the situation in Quebec, which stipulates that a collective agreement will continue to apply until a new one has been signed. The third concerns non-targeted workers.

I would like to begin by addressing technological change. As you know, one of the paradoxes of the process we have experienced is that the government claims to have modernized the Canada Labour Code without addressing the thorny and delicate question of technological change. We are well aware that technological change impacts very heavily on the way work is organized.

I would like to give an example close to my heart, which relates to Hochelaga--Maisonneuve and, by that very fact, I would like to dedicate this example to the people in my community. Some years ago, when I was starting to get interested in politics, there were in my neighbourhood what were termed skilled labourers: machinists, a highly respected job. I am sure the hon. member for Mercier will recall that they were part of what was called the aristocracy of labourers.

Thanks to a totally new production process, a very significant change took place; a punched tape made it possible to change the organization of the work totally, which had an effect on the workers that were required.

What the Bloc Quebecois amendment proposes is to allow the unions the opportunity of having a say on how technological change will be implemented in the work place. The employer is required to give reasonable notice, after which it is stated that, if agreement is not reached on the manner in which technological change is to be implemented, this could go right up to the right to strike.

Technological change is important, because it is estimated that the life cycle of equipment in certain industries on the leading edge of technology may not exceed five years. Associated with these life cycles are major changes in terms of manufacturing processes.

It is hard to understand why the government remained silent on such a topical issue. Especially since the minister himself had put in place a round table, a discussion forum where he was told what lay ahead and what the basic trends were both in the retail trade and in the service sector. In spite of it all, the minister did not say a word on such a major issue.

Before I get to our proposal, I would like to share with you, if I may, what a very important central labour body in Quebec told the committee. I am referring, of course, to the CSN. I want you to know what its representatives made us realize in committee.

According to the CSN, only after a negotiated settlement providing for the right to strike in the event of a dispute has been reached should the provisions relating to technological change be implemented in the workplace. The CSN analysis is premised on the idea that the potential for a dispute exists and that this in itself is important enough to be considered an element in the bargaining process that could eventually lead to the exercise of the right to strike.

The definition of "technological change" should be broad enough to encompass all modern technology. It should not be defined in minute detail, but it should be clear what is meant by technological change.

After a reasonable time has elapsed-this is a legal provision found in many bills-the information provided to the union should deal with-that is why it is important to be very clear about the type of information required-all economic, technical and organizational aspects of the employer's plans, including a detailed description of the project, a cost-benefit analysis, the positions affected, a manpower assessment, the impact on work organization, and an implementation schedule.

I hope this brief excerpt from a much longer submission will convince you, Madam Speaker, and the parliamentary secretary, that this is an amendment worth considering and that the government should support it.

I want to discuss another issue before giving the floor to a colleague. Madam Speaker-and I know you have a keen interest in this issue-there is a labour code in Quebec, as in other provinces, but our province has always been something of a pioneer. Quebec never does things by halves. Get ready because, in the future, a fundamental change will take place. But this is not the time to discuss it.

I want to call the house's attention to section 59 of the Quebec labour code. If my information is accurate, section 59 provides what I would call, based on my old notions of law, an evergreen clause. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Mercier will let me say this, because she is much more familiar than I am with labour law, but it seems to me there is something tacit in what is being proposed, something akin to an evergreen clause.

What does this mean? It means that when negotiations are undertaken-and later on we will elaborate on the process proposed by the minister-since currently there is no provision in the Canada Labour Code similar to the one in section 59 of the Quebec labour code, and since the government did not want to include such a provision, workers could be deprived of the protection afforded by the evergreen clause, which provides that a collective agreement is deemed to be in effect until a new one, hopefully a negotiated one, comes into effect.

This is what our proposed amendments seek to provide. These provisions were suggested by a number of witnesses, including the CSN. I fail to see how the government could reject these amendments. One would have a hard time finding arguments against these very sound proposals.

This concludes my explanation. I am very optimistic that the government will support our amendments.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, given that the amendments we are considering were tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, I thought that we were entitled to speak first.

[Fight Against Aids, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, instead of working ferociously to bring about the demise of sports and cultural events, the Minister of Health should give researchers the money they need to pursue the fight against AIDS.

Can the minister tell the House if the government intends to continue supporting the research and prevention activities undertaken as part of the national AIDS strategy after March 31, 1998?

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all along we have noticed the government's lack of co-operation on amendments dictated by common sense.

We are speaking on behalf of the witnesses who testified before us. They told us that in general this bill contained interesting things. We never pushed partisan politics to the point of saying that this piece of legislation was altogether bad; however, we believe it does not go far enough, it could have contained what we already

have in Quebec, very clear provisions dealing with unfair practices regarding replacement workers.

We would have liked this bill to be more explicit with regard to technological change and board membership.

Why not have made sure the wording was clear? As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and a brilliant one at that, you know how important it is for a piece of legislation to contain provisions which are very clear, which cannot give rise to ambiguous interpretation on the part of tribunals, either administrative tribunals or ordinary courts of law, and we would have liked the way members are appointed, not so much how they are appointed as whom they represent, to be extremely clear.

We would have liked to be able to proceed from lists submitted by both management and labour, along the lines of what we had suggested during consideration of Bill C-64, which established the Human Rights Tribunal and reviewed the Employment Equity Act. We had asked for lists which could have been used by the government.

You will understand that the minute it becomes clear, the minute it requires a commitment, the government tries to evade the issue. All the amendments in the third group follow the same logic: We say that it is true that, in the whole issue of labour relations, we should, as legislators, seek some balance between the rights and obligations of the employer on the one hand, and the rights and obligations of the unions on the other hand, keeping in mind that in our society we recognize the right to strike, as the ultimate pressure tactic, but according to very clear guidelines.

What we were trying to do, regarding the board and some governance issues like the creation of new tribunals, as allowed by Bill C-64, regarding compensation for their full or part time members, regarding travel and entertainment expenses, was give the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development the power to examine all the questions relating to the Canada Labour Code, so that it could study the whole matter and hold hearings.

I think this is a very healthy reflex we have always had since becoming the official opposition in this House, to make sure that the committees are involved in making decisions on a number of questions.

Never did we think an amendment like this one could obstruct the work of the Canada Labour Relations Board and the various tribunals that will be created; never did we intend or think, even in the boldest of our amendments, that this could be a stalling tactic preventing us from having a diligent board and a speedy process.

Let me give you an example. During the clause by clause consideration of the bill, I was with the hon. member for Mercier, who has 20 or so years of experience in the field of labour relations. Not many parliamentarians in this House can match that.

I would like to remind you that, when, as the official opposition, we were presented with a provision which we really felt would enable the Canada industrial relations board, formerly the Canada Labour Relations Board, to operate much faster and much more efficiently, we gave it our unconditional support-as the minutes will testify-because, when the clause by clause study of Bill C-66 first began, we as parliamentarians realized that there were a number of concerns about the board.

Some stakeholders, labour in particular, felt the internal workings of the board itself were cumbersome. We welcomed with great pleasure and enthusiasm the preliminary hearings on disclosure of evidence. I sense a certain reaction from you, Mr. Speaker, because you are very concerned about anything that relates to the law. We are very pleased by the fact that the board can sit with only one person. Obviously, when there is only one person involved, the issues discussed are very specific.

Therefore, anything that helps streamline the process will get the unequivocal support of the official opposition. For the sake of the board's legitimacy, integrity and effectiveness, it would be a good thing if, as regards the issue of travel and living expenses-and the makeup of a panel when deemed appropriate by the chairperson, since it is a prerogative of the chairperson to convene such a panel and to direct its composition according to very specific instructions-the human resources development committee could take part in the process.

The parliamentary secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that, during the last election campaign, government members, that is the Liberals, said they hoped that House committees would play a greater role, that parliamentary committees would be much more closely involved in the decision-making process than they currently are.

This is precisely the underlying philosophy behind the amendments now before the House. Is democracy not something that is very healthy? Is it not reassuring for those who are watching us to know that the official opposition hopes that House committees, which are made up of duly elected members of Parliament, can be involved in a number of decisions that are important to the governance of this country? This is what we are talking about.

Again, on a number of occasions, we have been very supportive of any clause in the bill that streamlines the process, so as to alleviate the backlog of cases before the Canada Labour Relations Board.

I simply cannot imagine the government rejecting these amendments, since they are directly inspired by the Liberal Party's philosophy, as stated in the red book.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-66, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 7 on page 41 with the following:

"shall present the report to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Human Resource Development at the first meeting of the committee following the completion of the report."

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-66, in Clause 2, be amended by a ) replacing line 6 on page 8 with the following:

"13. (1) The head office of the Board must be in" b ) replacing line 9 on page 8 with the following:

"the Board may establish, with the approval of the committee of the House of Commons referred to in subsection (2), any other offices" c ) adding after line 12 on page 8 the following:

"(2) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider matters respecting the development of human resources shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), either approve or reject the establishment of any other offices of the Board under that subsection."

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-66, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 15 with the following:

"the Board may revoke the appointment"