Dale Johnston

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Group No. 7. I want to talk a bit about replacement worker legislation.

While this legislation does not come out with an outright ban on the use of replacement workers, it does leave, to say the least, a lot of discretion up to the CIRB. It begs probably more questions than it actually answers.

The discretion of whether to use replacement workers is going to be left solely to the board. In any case of the use of replacement workers there will be tremendous pressure put on the board to agree with the union that this an undermining of the union, which is referred to in the vernacular as union busting.

It is likely that, under tremendous pressure, the use of any replacement workers, whether managerial or otherwise, will be seen by the board as undermining the fundamentals of the union.

We have read quotes by several union leaders which say exactly that. They say they are going to impress on the board in every instance where replacement workers are used that it will be solely to undermine the union.

I think there are instances where replacement workers will simply be used to maintain the viability of the business. I do not think there is a union in the world that would like to have its employer broke. It would be basically cutting off its nose to spite its face.

In the area of replacement workers, we are also told by union bosses that this is absolutely necessary to prevent violence. It seems as if we are under some kind of constant threat. If there is not an outright ban on replacement workers there may be violence. The unions are quick to cite examples of where there was violence on the picket lines. Violence is one thing but good labour legislation is another thing. There are laws which state that violence is not acceptable and having to pass labour laws under the veil of possible violence is doing it for the wrong reasons.

In the course of the debate today we heard how naive some members in this House thought members of the Reform Party were because we made allusions to protecting the national economy from devastating work stoppages that would have an effect on the national economy. A rather weak argument was put forth that of course any disruption of services is going to put economic pressure on somebody. Certainly. Of course. We understand that the union wants to put economic pressure on the employer in order for the employer to see the union's way of thinking.

Apparently, the people who made those comments had selective hearing. We were talking about actions taken by employers and employees, strikes or lockouts, that would have a devastating effect on the national economy. A devastating effect on the national economy filters down very quickly to the very people my colleagues down the way are purporting to protect. If there is a work stoppage of any type that has a tremendously adverse effect on the economy, it is the little people who support those businesses and who depend on those services who are ultimately hurt.

I will deliberately shorten my comments because some of my colleagues would like to share their thoughts on the use and partial bans of replacement workers.

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-19, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 24 on page 36.

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 38 on page 33.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 31 with the following:

“let-go and loading of vessels and the move-”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended, in the English version only, by replacing line 26 on page 31 with the following:

“ment of vessels in and out of a port”

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 6 deals with the continuation of services where there is a situation in which the danger to public health or safety may exist and the minister would be able to step in and intervene.

That seems very reasonable. There are, however, no provisions in the bill that would allow for the continuation of service in order to protect Canada's economy. For instance, in the 1994 west coast work stoppage the estimated cost was in the range of $125 million. That is the direct cost. That is what was estimated it would cost the Canadian farmers by not getting their crops to market. I suppose one could say they would eventually get their crops to market but if an item is not on the shelf, so to speak, it is extremely difficult to sell it. I think this is one occasion where a work stoppage had a devastating effect on the Canadian economy.

We are talking about the direct costs at the moment of roughly $125 million. Indirectly the figures vary but it has been generally stated that the indirect costs could be as high as $250 million and a possibility of threatening $500 million in grain sales in the future.

Why do we say threatened grain sales in the future? If customers come to Canada for a load of grain and they find their ships have to wait in the port for a week or two weeks or three weeks and they have to go down to Seattle or Portland in order to get a load of grain, in the future they are going to say why take chances on going to Canada and not get the supply order they came for, that perhaps they should deal with the United States in the first place.

There should be some protection in the bill to protect the economy and to protect the innocent third parties who rely on these services. Services, as I have stated before, are not readily available. It is not as though we have a multiple choice as far as where we can ship our grain. Canada is not particularly well endowed with ports. The ports we have are certainly well appointed and capable of handling a tremendous amount of traffic but we do not have very many. When we have work stoppages at Canada's major port on the west coast it has an absolutely devastating effect on the economy of the country.

It would be in the interests of all Canadians if we have reliable access to services. Definitely it would help to keep employment within our borders and establish and maintain a reputation as a reliable worldwide supplier and exporter of goods. As I have said, we definitely have a world class transportation system and we should not allow it to fall whim to work stoppages, in particular work stoppages that occur at the highest traffic times of the year. We will hear people say if you are going negotiate, to take some kind of a job action, the best time to take it is when there is lots of activity because you want to put optimum pressure on whomever you are bargaining with to come to terms.

This bill does provide for maintenance of services whenever there is a danger to public health or safety. But I think the national economy is important enough that there should be some provision in here.

Throughout the bill we have seen the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, the replacement for the old Canada labour relations board, given all kinds of powers. Indeed we see where the minister and the governor in council have all kinds of powers they can use as well. We think it is only reasonable that they be given some latitude as to whether these work stoppages will have a devastating effect on Canada's economy and we have to look at the spin-off jobs damaged by the disruption in these services.

Motions Nos. 22 and 23 deal with amendments to the provision that ensures that grain once it reaches port will be shipped out. I would like to make it perfectly clear that the Reform Party is wholeheartedly in favour of farmers' grain being able to be shipped offshore unimpeded from the farm gate right to the high seas.

But this bill does not guarantee that. This bill does not address that. This bill simply says that if the grain reaches the port it will be loaded on to the ships and the ships will be piloted out of the harbour. It addresses the tie-up, loading and let go of grain vessels. We agree that is a good small step. But what does it do for the farmers on the prairies who cannot get their grain to the port because there is some kind of a work stoppage somewhere else in the system, between the farm gate and the port? This bill addresses no portion of that.

We are suggesting there should be some kind of dispute settlement mechanism in place that will allow services to continue in the west coast ports while negotiation takes place. We certainly agree that a negotiated settlement is far better and probably more long lasting than any kind of an imposed settlement. Regardless of what our opponents will try to convince us of, that is our position. We believe that to negotiate a settlement is the best way.

However, there are many other products, coal, sulphur, potash, dehydrated alfalfa, many petrochemical products as well, that depend on a deep water port to get their products to the markets, often to the Asian markets, and by sea is the only logical way to transport these products. The alfalfa dehydrators for instance export about $100 million worth of product a year and their product is perishable as well.

What we are saying is put in a dispute settlement mechanism. If the government decides the Reform Party has given too much profile to final offer selection arbitration and brings it in, it would be accused of caving into the Reform Party. Then let it come up with a dispute settlement mechanism of its own making, of its own naming, but something that would have the effect of the continuation of services at the west coast ports while we encourage those people to come to an agreement.

What has been the alternative over the years? The alternative has been to legislate services back to work at the west coast ports. Once that happens, there will be services reluctantly restored but there are none of the things addressed that brought about the work stoppage in the first place.

This government has used a dispute settlement mechanism over and over in the past in conjunction with back to work legislation. We are suggesting that a dispute settlement mechanism is needed here that would be far more effective than simply picking out one commodity and declaring it an essential service.

We certainly concur with the expedient movement of grain from the farm gate to the high seas. We recognize the provisions in this bill are a small step in that direction.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 28 with the following:

“of the public or the causing of severe economic hardship to the national economy.”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended

(a) by replacing line 34 on page 29 with the following:

“danger to the safety or health of the public or cause severe economic hardship to the national economy, the”

(b) by replacing line 42 on page 29 with the following:

“or health of the public or the causing of severe economic hardship to the national economy;”

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in Group No. 5 we see several motions put forth by the Bloc and unfortunately we can support none of them.

The requirement for a 72 hour notice before a work stoppage takes place is a reasonable one. The Bloc wants to delete this provision. We do not agree with that at all.

The 72 hour notice period is one of the few positive features of Bill C-19, at least one of the changes we could support. It would allow innocent third parties that have goods in transit, for instance, an opportunity to seek alternate arrangements. Or, if their goods were actually in transit, they would have an opportunity to carry on their journey prior to having the services withdrawn.

Many times we find perishable goods stranded somewhere and by the time labour and management have resolved their differences the perishable goods have spoiled. That is unfortunate and not fair to innocent third parties that ship these goods. Of course it has a very detrimental affect on Canada's economy overall.

The amendments put forth by my colleagues in the Bloc are not in concert with the idea of seeking a balance between labour and management. The people who use these services must be considered more because when services are withdrawn, whether through a strike or a lockout, it is not just management and labour that are affected. It is all the people who rely on the services in the area where federal industrial relations apply. Oftentimes these are services for which there is not an immediate alternative. In many cases this is the only game in town as far as the services are concerned. The provision for the 72 hour notice before a strike or lockout is a rather reasonable one and should not be amended as my colleague has suggested.

The 60 days as referred to in Motion No. 13 is reasonable and sufficient to negotiate and give the employers and employees time to prepare for possible work disruptions. As the parliamentary secretary alluded to several times in her statement, it allows for an orderly shutdown. It also allows time for people to make alternate plans. We concur with that. We think it is reasonable. We think it is an area that would not be improved by the amendment put forth by our colleague in the Bloc.

Motion No. 14 in particular seems to be a continuation of Motion No. 13. It would seem to deny worker and employee associations an opportunity to participate in a ballot vote. Our party is very much in support of a ballot vote being taken to determine whether there should be work stoppage or a strike. Also a ballot vote should be taken to determine whether or not a union should be certified.

In summing up, we will not be able to support these motions.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we again find ourselves, for I think the 40th time, looking at time allocation in the House. We believe this is a very important piece of legislation that should be debated. We have noted that in the past when the Liberals were in opposition they thought it was absolutely deplorable that the Tories would move time allocation as many times as they did. The Liberals wrote the book on time allocation.

I would like to refer members back to the beginning of the 36th Parliament. The first item on the Order Paper was Bill C-19. It languished on the Order Paper until sometime in November when it was given first reading. It remained on the Order Paper and just recently there was a big panic to put through the labour legislation which, I might add, was also an item of business in the 35th Parliament.

Suddenly there is a big panic to get this legislation passed, to the point where the government is only going to allow one further day of debate at report stage and one further day at third reading. I think this is an unprecedented abuse of the power of the government to lord it over the opposition. Our duty is to point out how we think we can improve this legislation and the government, I submit, is really hampering us in doing that.

To speak specifically to Group No. 4, the amendment put forth by my colleague from the Bloc indicates that the parties should agree on who the conciliator or the conciliation board should be at a point when the two parties cannot seem to agree on much of anything. This comes at a point when both labour and management have agreed to disagree basically on everything or negotiations would not have broken off.

I think that if the member's motion had read that both parties would submit names of conciliation officers that they would approve of and if each side happened to recommend a person whom each one agreed on then that would be fine. But to come up with a conciliator, an officer or a board, to make any sort of judgment on this is going to be extremely difficult.

If we are looking at people who are going to come in to assess the situation and render a decision, I think that input from the two groups would be a good idea. If they happen to agree on a person to arbitrate the case, that is fine.

I do not believe, though, that my colleague's amendment has a chance in the world of passing since at committee, on at least one occasion, members of the government made remarks that they certainly were not foolish enough to entertain or to pass any amendments put forth by the opposition. So I would caution my colleague that although his intentions are no doubt honourable and will, in his opinion, improve the legislation, he has about as much chance of having this amendment passed as the proverbial snowball in Hades.

I should not prejudge the hon. member, but I think he may have overlooked one of the decisions the minister can make here. He may appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation board or advise the parties of his intention to do neither. He may just say “No, I do not think it is appropriate for me to get involved at this time”, and the parties would therefore be forced into a situation where they would have to go back and negotiate and get down to brass tacks rather than just throw their hands up and turn it over to someone else.

There has been a lot said in the House about whether this party or that party supports the collective bargaining process. Certainly the Reform Party does support the right to organize peacefully, to strike and to negotiate through a union.

However, I think the legislation, as I have said before in the House, is patterned after a report by Mr. Andrew Sims, and he named the report “Seeking a Balance”. Certainly that is a noble goal for any labour legislation and indeed for most legislation, that it be balanced. Page after page of the report concerns the empowerment of the union organizers, the union bosses, and not necessarily the rank and file people who pay membership dues to the union, and certainly not the people who provide jobs for those union members.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary knows it is not proper to comment on the presence or absence of members in this House.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-19, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 45 on page 19 and lines 1 to 4 on page 20 with the following:

“47.3 (1) In this section, “previous contractor” means an employer who, under the terms of a contract or other arrangement that is no longer in force, provided preboard security screening services to another employer, or to a person acting on behalf of that other employer, in an industry referred to in paragraph (e) of the definition “federal work, undertaking or business” in section 2.”

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-19, in Clause 45, be amended

(a) by replacing line 25 on page 35 with the following:

“tion 24(4) or 34(6), section 37, 50 or 69,”

(b) by replacing line 32 on page 35 with the following:

“subsection 24(4), paragraph”

Mr. Speaker, this clause of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, is dealing with successor rights in a contract.

What we are suggesting here is that a large section of this successor rights legislation should be removed because it basically gives too much discretionary power to the minister. We really do not think it is appropriate that the minister has the power to say which federally regulated industries or businesses are going to have this successor rights applied to them.

The minister and departmental officials have explained to the committee and to me that the biggest concern here was with preboarding screening at airports. When the people providing the services at the airports would organize then usually what would follow would be the sale of the business providing the contract to the airport. The sale of the business would nullify the union that had just been organized.

The department was telling us that it had a large concern in the area of security for airports, and that it was continually training and retraining people to do the work of screening at the airports. There was the possibility that security would not be as efficient and as effective as it should be. Perhaps we should give the minister and his department that much.

What we are saying is that we are not willing to allow the minister carte blanche on deciding which industries would be affected by these successor contracts, which businesses would be handcuffed by not being able to renegotiate with their employees should they take over in a bona fide sale condition.

There are other parts that apply to this portion that determine and define what is meant by sale, which in any sort of leasing program or rollover the business is deemed to have been sold.

My colleague from British Columbia is most anxious to speak to this bill and to this amendment. He has instances where railroads have been willing to close spur lines and private companies have been willing to buy up the line from them and start short line railroads. It is a disincentive to those fledgling businesses to take a contract that is going to handcuff them into paying the same sort of wages and benefits that CPR or CNR have been paying.

This is a disincentive to business. Some members on the government side have some concern with this part of the act. I am hopeful they will have an opportunity to address this in their remarks and I am hopeful they will concur with the Reform Party that this should be addressed. I am anticipating their overwhelming support for my motion.

The hon. member from Rainy River has some expertise in the railroads. I am positive that he will be on his feet in a few minutes to tell us about the great benefits in the railroad unions.

There is some merit to the aspect of preboarding screening. Everyone in Canada should feel secure that preboarding screening is done with the utmost of care and that no foreign materials or contraband can be smuggled on to aircraft. We all feel a lot better about that because we use those services so often.

It does not seem to matter what bill we are addressing in this House. Over an over again the governor in council has been given the latitude to make all kinds of rulings that should be addressed in legislation rather than left to the whim of the minister and cabinet.

The present government when it was in opposition certainly must have made similar representations at that time. I am very concerned because of what might happen through orders in council. I would ask them to consider very carefully this aspect of the bill.

The successor rights provided in this bill will have the effect of really tying in anybody who is a bona fide purchaser of any federally regulated industry to whatever contract the predecessor had. If the company was not flourishing at the time that the seller sold then it would be very difficult for a fledgling person to step into an area where he would have to compete with a global supplier as in the case of the railroads.

In Alberta there are short line railways. If they had to compete with all the classifications found in the unions as far as job descriptions and all the rest it would be very difficult for them. As it is they are in a position where they can provide a very effective service with minimal amounts tied up in labour capital.

One particular operator in Alberta is the engineer of a very successful short line railroad. I am sure he would most concerned if he were to read these portions of the bill.

In other sections of the bill we have to be very cognizant that the legislation the House of Commons passes should have some benefit for the average person in Canada. The average person in Canada is very dependent on the state of the economy, whether it is buoyant, stagnant or whether it is actually going backward. We would have to assess every piece of legislation to that effect and assess whether the average Canadian will benefit from the things we are talking about on the bill or whether this will make it easier to form unions, thereby benefiting the union bosses rather than the union rank and file.

I am certain there are other members who would like to add their wisdom to this portion of the bill which I would be most interested in hearing. I encourage members to vote in favour of this most sensible amendment.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 5.30 p.m. rather than starting another speaker at one minute to.