Ghislain Fournier

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, back home, on the Lower North Shore, there is no crab left. The people need help. Indeed, the economy will have to be diversified through initiatives already being contemplated. It is urgent to act by improving the employment insurance program. Will this government act or not?

[Fisheries, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is critical. My constituents are desperate, as am I. I spoke with the minister about this project on May 1. He told me he was looking at the idea. We spoke again on May 5; he told me again that he was looking at it.

Today is May 8; what does it take? A decision needs to be made. What does he have to say to my constituents? If he does not care, if he wants to shut down the Lower North Shore, he should say so.

[Fisheries, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding on the Lower North Shore are crying for help. All that they had left, their fishery, is now completely off limits. They need help. I presented the minister with a seal processing project with Tamasu, which is only waiting on a supply guarantee.

What is the minister waiting for to confirm this supply guarantee?

[Fisheries, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis hitting the crab fishers is spreading now to the plant workers, such as those in Chandler and the Lower North Shore. More and more workers will soon find themselves out of a job.

What concrete measures does the federal government intend to implement to assist workers experiencing not only a financial catastrophe, but also an unparalleled human catastrophe? All the fishers on the Lower North Shore are out of work.

[Fisheries, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced job creation measures to be implemented in fishing communities hard hit by the moratorium on fishing.

If the minister were prepared to guarantee a quota of 35,000 seals to a sealskin processing business, this business could begin operations right away.

Does the minister intend to give this exclusive quota to the fishers of the Lower North Shore, thereby creating immediate jobs in a community in need?

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right, but it is because my colleague over there made me angry and got me going.

I agree with you, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the member took his cue from the labour minister and if the same holds true for all his Liberal colleagues. Do all his colleagues think like him? Do they all believe that companies have rights and workers have none? Does he think that there is no balance of bargaining power between companies and workers?

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything like the remarks of the hon. member opposite since the 1950s, at least not often.

It is incredible that someone would make such remarks. I took notes. He spoke of the needs of employers. No argument there. We all agree. Businesses need to be productive, they need to compete and to compete in a global environment. No argument there. However, within a country, wealth is divided through negotiations and leverage.

You say that workers can bargain, but you will not give them the necessary tools. This is akin to sending troops to war without providing them with weapons, telling them, “Off you go; fight the war and get yourself killed”.

Strikes bother people. There is no doubt about it. We must be aware of that, and accept it. The dignity and respect of workers is at stake.

In your remarks, you spoke only of the benefits of businesses. As far as you are concerned, businesses have the right to operate, and they cannot stop. The workers have no rights; they cannot demand respect and bargain. That is what you said. It is shocking to hear such things in this century.

Do I understand correctly that this is the philosophy of his party as a whole, including the Minister of Labour? Is this how the Liberal Party looks at the issue? Are you abandoning the fundamental rights of workers to negotiate a collective agreement to ensure that wealth is distributed fairly and equitably? Is this your party's philosophy? Do your colleagues and the Minister of Labour endorse this philosophy? Was it imposed on you by your—

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Without a doubt, the minister lacks courage, transparency and accountability. Her main goal is to protect society, which starts with protecting the workers who are building this country.

Not so long ago, I had the opportunity to talk with some seniors. These wise citizens, who were once unionized, who have worked and built something, who now have children and grandchildren in the workforce, asked me at one point if the federal government was going to follow in the footsteps of Quebec and pass anti-scab legislation.

I told them what my colleague just pointed out, that this is not one of the major concerns of the labour minister, in Ottawa, although it should be. We will call on her to be in the House when we vote on the anti-scab measure brought forward by the hon. member for Laurentides. We urge the labour minister to take her responsibilities once and for all, to be transparent and to tell us if she is for or against anti-scab legislation.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his excellent question.

I have been through both situations. I was a labour leader when we had a six-month strike. It was very civilized. It lasted six months because we had to negotiate better working conditions. However, we negotiated under the Quebec essential services legislation. The employer respected essential services and so did the union. The atmosphere was agreeable and we had a good balance of power.

On the other hand, I have also been through a strike under the Canada Labour Code, and it was hell. It created upheaval and hatred. There was fighting and some people had their legs broken. Still today, some people will not talk to one another because of these unhealthy disputes. There is a legislative vacuum and we keep asking the federal government, “For the love of God, fill this vacuum; do as other provinces have done. Give us a tool to prevent such upheaval and fill this vacuum”. Let us not destroy forever relations which, with a good law, could be built again. The government recognizes rights and essential services, but it does not give us the tools to do the job.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Laurentides, who has been working steadfastly for the dignity and respect of workers. I would say that Canadians are lucky to have the Bloc Quebecois looking out, in this House, for the interests of all workers, and not only those of workers in Quebec . With the anti-strikebreaking legislation, we are looking out for workers throughout Canada, we are looking out for all Canadians.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important issue, and one that I care a great deal about. On this great May 1, International Workers Day, as a parliamentarian, I am pleased to see us take one more step to improve the well-being of workers.

In an advanced society such as ours, in human and technological terms, anti-strikebreaking legislation is a necessity . This debate on labour relations during a dispute is of the utmost importance to many workers in my riding, and throughout the country. Work is the salt of society; workers are its beacons.

In the minds of every citizen, the right to strike means having a last resort when seeking better working conditions, employment protection, and better living conditions. Everybody recognizes that striking can be a last resort. It is the ultimate protection for the respect and dignity of workers.

When workers are down to going on strike, thereby forfeiting their work income, there is problem. It has not been recognized that problems are often caused by employers. But striking was recognized as a right, a right that provides workers with a degree of protection. This right was hard earned, and I know what I am talking about. Common sense prevailed, ultimately. It is one of the benefits of democracy, a topic much talked about in recent days, particularly at this time.

The Labour Code recognizes this right. The Public Service Staff Relations Act also recognizes it. What authority does one have to disregard it or to take it away? Yet this is commonplace, especially in this House and in Ottawa. There is a legal void in the legislation. There is a provision missing, one prohibiting any employer from hiring replacement workers, who are outlaws, basically.

The only way to fill this void is an anti-strikebreaking law, like the one my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides has introduced. It is not a sword dangling over employers' heads. It is a tool to ensure that the law is obeyed. It is not a luxury, either, especially in a society like ours. It is a necessity. We cannot enhance the value of work with one hand, while with the other we prevent development and growth, and still expect success.

History has taught us this in Quebec and in Canada's provinces. Abominable acts have been committed because of this legal void. Think of cases—some were mentioned today—such as Vidéotron recently. How many problems could have been avoided if there had been anti-scab legislation? How much lost time for both employees and employers? How much hate, worry, suffering and financial loss?

When I think of my area, for example, I think of Cargill. We have talked about the 36 months of strike, the 36 months of conflict, because the employer resorted to strikebreakers. That was not a solution; it was a calamity. It is an illusion to think it protects employers.

A strike that is undermined by replacement workers is a strike that goes on and on. It is a situation of increased hostility between two parties who ought to concentrate on wages rather than waging war on the labour front. It is a bunch of trouble, as we say.

I have seen brothers stop speaking to each other. I have seen families that almost collapsed. I have seen a society sliding from harmony into chaos because of this legal void, this hole, which should have been filled in long ago. In my riding, there is the case of Iron Ore and Quebec North Shore, in Sept-Îles, and that is a pathetic case.

Just imagine. Some family members working under Quebec legislation are well protected, and others are dealing with scabs because they, under federal jurisdiction as railway employees, are not. It was awful.

Legislation in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia proves that the trend to integrate the principle of prohibiting the use of workers to replace striking workers is gaining ground. Both with employers' groups and unions, wherever this principle is applied, it is not only well accepted, it has been well integrated.

The days of giving with one hand and taking away with the other are over. It is high time for the federal government to introduce measures to stop disputes resulting from the use of scabs. Workers solely under the Canada Labour Code deserve, like everyone else, quality of life and respect for themselves and their rights.

The use of pressure tactics, such as hiring scabs, subjects workers to great stress. It increases the risk of violence and makes bargaining more difficult, as we have seen numerous times. The evidence is overwhelming.

The use of scabs has led to unfair, dictatorial practices. It forces workers to settle for less than a good agreement and leads to unhealthy labour relations that inevitably result in poorer quality services and often higher unemployment.

The use of scabs during labour disputes tips the balance of power in favour of employers. Employers resorting to such methods are clearly unlikely to bargain in good faith.

Democratic principles must be introduced to labour relations. These principles have proven very beneficial in dispute resolution. Quebec statistics show, beyond all doubt, that, when these principles are applied, strikes are significantly shorter.

This aspect must be considered. The Canada Labour Code is not a complete tool for resolving disputes under its jurisdiction. Far from it.

Quebec and some of the provinces were right to implement a civilized labour relations system. This system has restored the true balance of power to bargaining resulting from labour disputes.

When what I call scabs cross the picket line, it is not a strike, it is a joke. It is a lie. It is hypocrisy.

Either we support the right to strike, with all that this implies, or we oppose this fundamental right in any enlightened society, a right that was hard earned. If we support this right, we cannot violate this sacred right for all workers, whether directly or indirectly. The Canada Labour Code must be updated and improved to meet today's needs and realities.

A bill whose purpose is to improve the Canada Labour Code and supplement the staff relations act without altering them deserves all our consideration and support. Workers would feel better about themselves.

Employers would be protected against unnecessary downward variations in their production, against a negative work environment, against major revenue losses due to lengthy disputes and against the absence of their most qualified and specialized workers, as well as against material losses due to frustration, stress and the animosity that is inevitably generated by the deterioration of labour relations.

I ask you all to think very carefully before rejecting anti-scab legislation, before refusing to include a beneficial element in the Canada Labour Code, because this would also mean giving up on these workers' human dignity and respect. This would violate our parliamentary privileges, which are designed to let us serve the society we have promised to serve well.

Once again, on workers' day, let us offer our workers all the respect and dignity that this protection of their right to strike in civilized conditions would be. I urge the government to support our workers, for once.