Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-66. I would like to address my remarks to one aspect of the bill, that portion which deals with replacement workers.
When looking back over the union movement, at the turn of the century we see it starting with the sense that workers should receive fair value for their labour. As time went on the union movement in Britain, Europe, the United States and Canada grew stronger and stronger, particularly in the post-war period, after the second world war.
In the 1970s and 1980s the driving force of unionism transposed from this desire to have a value for labour-full value for the labour that the worker put in-to something that was a little bit more, the principle that the worker should share in the profits of the company.
In my own view, consequently what happened with organized labour, certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, was a sense that if unionized workers were employed by a company that was doing very well in the market then they bargained for higher and higher wages and benefits. I do not think that any of us would quarrel very much with that in principle. It seems reasonable that if the work force is very much a part of a company, it should benefit just as shareholders do when a company does well.
However, times change and sometimes they change very rapidly. In the late 1980s and coming into the 1990s we have seen the phenomenon of the global markets. First was North American free trade and now certainly a very strong trend to world free trade. This is a change in the situation with respect to countries like Canada in terms of their relationship with their work forces.
It now becomes imperative, if a country's industries are going to compete on the world stage, that they be cost efficient, especially in the area of labour. Thus we find the situation where, particularly in the United States, for example, the union movement is under assault simply because the average American worker, particularly the unskilled labourer, is in direct competition with the workers of Mexico, the Far East and other places.
We have two trends running here. We came out of the eighties with the desire to give unionized workers a greater share in the earned benefits of a company and then the contrary pressure that companies have to be more and more competitive.
In 1993 the Ontario government introduced legislation that banned the use of replacement workers. This legislation was a logical evolution in the union movement. It gave more power to the unions and better guarantees to workers that they would share in the profits of the company.
This law was too late. It was behind its time. By 1993 it was very clear to anyone who was interested in business, finance and watching world markets that this law, which the New Democratic government in Ontario had passed, was not in the best interests of the Ontario economy being able to compete in other markets.
There was quite a bit of resistance at the time the legislation was introduced and considerable resistance thereafter. There was a simple reason for this. I can cite from my own experience in the communications industry that technology had created a situation where replacement workers in the high tech industries could be recruited from home. They could actually operate from their homes rather than go to an office. The whole idea of banning replacement workers made it very difficult for high tech companies to create an environment where they could use workers who were no longer on the premises but were operating outside of the city where the company was located.
In the high tech area the ban on replacement workers had a very negative consequence to the competitive position of high tech industries in Ontario. Because it gave such clout to organized labour, it was a threat to those companies which sought to renegotiate contracts to bring the level of remuneration to the workers down to a level that was more competitive in the world markets in which they had to compete.
When the new Conservative government was elected in Ontario one of the first things it did was repeal that legislation. I am not entirely in agreement with what the Ontario government did. I believe that even though we have these pressures from world markets on organized labour, we as Canadians and as politicians have a basic responsibility to defend the traditions of organized labour.
In the final analysis, organized labour fights for the rights of workers. We have every reason to want to see, when these terrible pressures come to bear on organized labour, that it does not ultimately collapse under the pressures, as indeed is happening in the United States. The union movement in the United States is
undergoing severe changes. Its influence and size is reducing very rapidly.
Bill C-66 addresses the problem of replacement workers. There was a very excellent report entitled "Seeking a Balance". It reviewed the Canada Labour Code. I commend this document to people who are interested in the economic situation vis-à-vis labour unions in Canada. It is an excellent review and an excellent analysis.
It addresses the problem where corporations have the desire to break unions because of market forces. This tempts companies to confront labour unions and to even lock them out. Then there is the danger of very bitter and brutal strikes and ultimately the destruction of particular unions. Because there is so much labour in the marketplace, it is a real danger that companies can replace the unionized workforce with scab labour. That is not a good thing either.
Instead of banning replacement workers entirely, as was done in 1993 in Ontario, and as laws exist right now in British Columbia and Quebec, Bill C-66 provides that a company facing strike action can bring replacement workers on board for the duration of the strike as long as it is made very clear that it is not trying to do so as an attempt to break the union.
After the labour dispute has been settled, Bill C-66 requires a company that has used replacement workers to hire back the unionized employees. That avoids a situation where a company may deliberately try to break a strike by using replacement workers and then hiring the replacement workers after the strike.
The legislation takes a very positive step in addressing the conflicting pressures of the union movement that is faced with these overwhelming global market pressures which try to reduce the effectiveness of the unions.
This is the kind of balance that the Liberal government in its wisdom is able to strike between the very conservative political right which would see the elimination of most labour unions and the very left of the left, the left wing of the spectrum which has over past years created a situation where unions have more power than is in the interests of Canada's competitive situation. I really endorse that aspect.
I would like to add one other remark about a very positive aspect of the legislation. It addresses a past problem involving grain handling at our ports. Situations have arisen in the past where the country was literally held to ransom when our ports were shut down, not by the transportation unions alone, but by affiliated unions, some very small unions on occasion, that have set up picket lines. Of course other union organizations respect these picket lines and on occasion it led to the paralysis of our ability move valuable commodities.
The provision in the bill which limits the right to strike, to paralyze ports, to those unions directly engaged in that form of activity is a very positive one.
I hope that members on all sides of the House will see fit to support the bill. It is a very good bill.
