Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to speak after listening to all that claptrap and bafflegab by the Liberal member who just spoke.
This is garbage about how we need television cameras in the committee room because then serious work will get done. We need something in the committee room so something serious gets done, but it is not TV cameras. It is the replacement of the majority of the people in there who act according to what the whip tells them. I have seen the whip's department in there watching how they vote on certain occasions to make sure they toe the party line.
In fact, one time they made a mistake in the transport committee. They actually had a Reform amendment that the hierarchy of the Liberal Party did not like, but it passed because there were a couple of Liberals who did not have their marching orders and consequently they voted according to what made sense instead of the directives of the Liberal hierarchy.
We came into this place at report stage and the Liberals made an amendment that changed the one that passed in committee. So much for the garbage spewed by the last speaker that we have to do things in committee where things are treated seriously.
As far as this business of replacement workers, it is really unfortunate that debate on this is going to be cut short. They say it should all be done in committee.
In committee we have three members. In this House we have 59. Basically they are denying 56 members the right to have a voice, to speak according to their constituents, to people they have consulted and according to their own beliefs. That is unacceptable. It is shameful.
They talk about democracy. They should not utter that word. It should not be coming out of their mouths.
Where I have a problem with the whole concept of replacement workers is that this act talks about who can decide when replacement workers can be used and when they cannot. The problem is where in here does it define exactly what a replacement worker is.
If you are working in a mill, operating a particular machine, and you go on strike and the company simply hires a different operator for that machine, that is a replacement worker. Frankly, I do not agree with that. Some of my colleagues may not happen to agree with me. That is fine. I think that is a replacement worker and I do not think that aspect of it should be allowed.
If on the other hand the company is owned by a particular individual and his wife and their business partner and they are able to keep that plant operating, then I think it is their right. It is their plant. Who are we or the labour relations board or anyone else to tell them they cannot run their own business? If there is a contract involved, they have to honour the obligations of that contract.
This allows the CIRB to actually make a decision. If the owner of the company does something and the union says that is taking away its powers because they are still making some money, the board says it will just shut them down. That is the power that this thing gives.
There is a bigger problem. The bigger problem is strikes. If there were no strikes, in a utopian world, we would not be arguing here today about whether there should be replacement workers. In a better world everybody would have a job. Everybody would be treated fairly. Negotiations would go smoothly. That would be just great. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world.
It might be a little more perfect if the other side would give us more time to discuss the possibilities and some of the things that might happen, but we get into this confrontational role and it does not want to hear other ideas. It is like the old adage, do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. I see them sitting laughing over there. I think it is great, at least somebody is in here to laugh. That is rare.
As far as whether replacement worker definition should be amended better, one of the things that is really sad about the death of democracy caused by the other side's vote this morning to restrict the debate is that we are not even going to get to Group No. 8. Group No. 8 would deal with something that would resolve the problem of replacement workers. Group No. 8 deals with an alternative to a strike. Would it not be wonderful if we could find a reasonable alternative to a strike?
We had the post office situation. This is something the Liberals should really appreciate because they just went through this. We had last year our fourth postal strike in ten years. Four times in the last ten years the governments of this country have allowed the post office, which is a monopoly, to shut down the mail service of this country. Each time the government says this is terrible, this is devastating, so it orders postal workers back to work.
It compounded the mistake with another mistake. The first mistake was to say “you can strike and restrict everybody and deprive them of their ability to have a mail service even though we have set it up so that there is only one possible alternative for you anyway to use the mail”. Then recognizing it made a mistake it made a second mistake by ordering postal workers back to work but not putting into place an alternative to going out on strike in the first place. Why should we be surprised if year after year, strike after strike we find ourselves right back in the same situation?
To make a mistake the first time I can understand. But when the same mistake is made over and over again then we have to start questioning the relative wisdom of the group that is making the mistake. The Liberal Party has certainly made that with the post office.
Now we have a potential strike of the air traffic system. I hope it does not go any further. For years that could not happen, but now they have been cut loose.
I tried in transport to get a provision put in that would provide an alternative to a strike-lockout dispute settlement mechanism. The vehicle we wanted to use was final offer arbitration. But the government in its wisdom chose not to do that.
Now we find ourselves in Bill C-19 arguing about replacement workers. Of course the government is going to be right back into that. It came up with the replacement worker concept for the air traffic controllers which basically put them in a situation where they could go on strike but when they were on strike everything carried on the same as always. So what does this do for the collective bargaining system the government claims it cherishes so much? It does not cherish it at all.
When we talk in terms of strikes, we do not talk about who wins and loses, because the winner is the person who loses the least. What is it going to take for the government to wake up? I am glad to see some of the Liberals are coming to their senses, coming over to the right side. I hope in doing that their minds change as well as their position, because if that happens we would make some progress in this place.
When there is a strike, and we do not even talk about replacement workers, we have a company that is deprived of their revenues, we have workers who are deprived of their income and we have all the supplemental collateral damage that is done to people all over other areas. Instead of talking about replacement workers, maybe we should be talking about replacing the dispute settlement mechanism in the labour code so that we actually have something that means Canadians will be able to keep their jobs and there will be a reasonable, viable alternative to going out on strike.
Going on strike or locking people out, if it happens to be the employer who initiates the labour disruption, is kind of like a duel where both sides shoot at one another.
I see I am even getting the victory sign from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I really like that. I think she finally realizes the error of her ways in the past and now she is actually ready to listen.
If nothing else happens out of all this debate, if we can get through to one poor soul on that side, then perhaps this will have been worth it.
The whole concept of replacement workers is wrong. We are approaching it from who decides when they can have them. The approach that should have been taken is what are replacement workers. The CIRB decides what hurts, what is okay, what is not, maybe it will flip a coin in the event of a strike. We cannot go tipping the scales by saying it is okay to change the formula for one side and not the other. I hate even to admit there is the possibility of a strike. We have to recognize we have a bigger problem and begin dealing with it with things like final offer arbitration.
However, as long as we are stuck in this system we need some kind of mechanism which states what constitutes a replacement worker. As long as the company is not using that type of person it is free to take those types of actions. Where we have someone who is clearly defined as a replacement worker there is no decision to make. It is black and white. They are not allowed to be used.
It is really unfortunate that we are dealing with an opposition of minds instead of dealing with solutions. We are in this confrontational position and unfortunately, because of the actions of the Liberal government today, the last and perhaps most important group, finding an alternative dispute settlement mechanism, will not even get debated. That is a shame.
