Yves Rocheleau

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank you for reading Motion No. 26 in its entirety. We asked you to do so on a matter of principle and as a symbolic gesture. Given the importance of this motion, we wanted it recorded properly in the Debates of the House of Commons .

I am also very proud to see that the motion is seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was responsible last year for the brilliant and valiant work done on the Canada Labour Code, when he held the position I have this year. Considering the situation that prevailed last year, I feel I must thank and congratulate him.

Here we are with Group No. 7, which substantially represents our position with respect to this bill, and which refers in particular to the clause on replacement workers. It is of such importance that we cannot, in all conscience, support this bill with the present wording of clause 42.

So that our audience may understand this fully, I feel it is worthwhile reading in its entirety the position of the government, backed by the NDP, and I believe by the Progressisve Conservative Party, while the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to clause 42, but for diametrically opposed reasons.

I will read clause 42 in its entirety.

No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.

Members will have noted, as my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, did last year, the convoluted wording, which is of no real help to anyone. It is a nightmare, not to put too fine a point on it, to get at the meaning of using for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives. It sidesteps the issue, and this is one of the secondary reasons, in addition to the fact that we are opposed to the substance, that we are opposed to the way the problem is set out.

I do not think that Canada—compared with Quebec obviously—is equipping itself with the means to move forward. I think that everyone is going after a careful balance. This is worth pointing out, because the whole thrust of the Sims report is to achieve balance. I think the result is something that is going to balance everyone into a corner.

This is one of the reasons—and it is both secondary and essential at the same time—we oppose this clause and accordingly the entire bill.

It is rather interesting to note, as I did earlier, that the Liberal party, the government party, is in favour of the bill. It is understandable that the New Democratic party supports it, given its close ties with the union movement. The Progressive Conservative party is in favour, but the Bloc Quebecois is not, nor is the Reform party, for diametrically opposed reasons.

It puts me in mind of Meech Lake, and this is part of the Canada-Quebec problem. The Bloc Quebecois is against the bill because it does not give workers enough, and the Reform party is against it because it gives workers too much. It is so strongly opposed that it wants to eliminate every term that prevents the hiring of scabs or replacement workers.

With the Reform Party there is no subtlety. It even goes into the details where the board is given powers to declare the hiring of replacement workers when done out in the open an unfair labour practice, whereas here, with their balanced approach, the Liberals are claiming that replacement workers can be hired in order to undermine a union's representational capacity.

The Reform Party goes a long way. Should it appear that replacement workers are being hired to undermine the union's representational capacity, it wants to deny the board the right to declare the hiring of replacement workers unfair labour practice. That's that.

The Conservatives are after the same thing, but more subtlely. Their approach is worth describing. The government has grown in wisdom and in thoughtfulness in the past year. It has added a very important word. Last year, the wording read “No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, thereby undermining a trade union's representational capacity—”, while the 1998 version reads “—for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity—”.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 38 on page 33 with the following:

“(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.”

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 19

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

“(1.1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out if the employees of the bargaining unit continue the activities referred to in subsection (1) in the manner prescribed by that subsection.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased once again to participate in this debate, particularly as it regards these two motions put forward by the Reform Party. Many things can be said about that party, but it cannot be said to keep its cards close to its chest. It cannot be said to hide the contempt it has for the workers or at least for labour organizations.

Since things in this House are not always spelled out, it is worth reading these motions for the benefit of our listeners and for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, to see what they are all about.

The first little masterpiece is found on page 28. Motion No. 18 of the Reform Party concerns section 87.4, which deals essentially with the maintenance of certain activities, which we in Quebec refer to in more transparent terms as essential services, such as public safety and health, as the Canada Labour Code refers to. However, as you will see, the Reform Party has added a very cute line about public safety and health with respect to economic activities in this country.

87.4(1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

If ever the Reform Party came to power in Canada—poor Canada—this would be all the more reason for Quebeckers to leave this country. And there are plenty of reasons. The Reform Party wants to add the following:

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

What this actually does is undermine the very existence of the right to strike and form a union because, ultimately, unions no longer have the right to strike, which is one of the things that make society fairer. Let us not kid ourselves; in the history of humanity, unions are a plus, not a minus.

Tactics as vicious as this, where a few little words completely undermine the real power, the equal footing at the heart of labour management negotiations, are a move—and a completely neo-Liberal one at that—to destroy the middle class.

The middle class benefits from the distribution of wealth and, through social programs and collective agreements, from the fact that wealth in this world is no longer concentrated in the hands of a tiny few but has been redistributed among several thousands of individuals. In the West, Europe, Scandinavia, North America, but unfortunately not many other places, there is a strong middle class that may also enjoy life.

That is what is at stake, make no mistake, if we approve such a motion, which adds a few words to ensure that strikes do not cause severe economic hardship to the national economy. They must not put anyone out. “Go ahead and strike, but we will make sure that no one is put out”. This is very hypocritical and cynical and members should be aware that it is part of an ideology that would see the gap between rich and poor grow as wide as possible and wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, as it was before the industrial revolution and the appearance of unions in the western world.

The same holds for the other amendment, which is undoubtedly a recommendation of the Sims report. It refers directly to the problem already experienced by western Canada, where there is a special provision for grain vessels, and the fact that grain vessels and all related port activities must continue to operate, strike or no strike, and this provision is imposed on employers and unions. As I understood the witnesses, the wisdom of this provision is the envy of other sectors of activity.

But grain shipping is an activity based on a perishable product and that is what lawmakers, in their wisdom, wish to illustrate. It seems that the members of the Reform Party and the right, those with a one track mind, cannot contemplate such subtlety in society, that is, they cannot contemplate our making legislative provision for perishable goods known as grains, which determine the economic activity of an entire region of this great country Canada, where those who testified, the farmers, are economically vulnerable.

This is what the code is attempting to remedy and what we support, but what is opposed by the spokespeople of big business, that is the oil and mining companies, which complained that one sector was getting special treatment while the necessary adjustments were not being made.

Very few people are aware of the fact, and I think the members all learned about it from a witness, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten, that this provision is contained in the Canadian Constitution, which would have to be amended in order to do away with this issue of grain crops and the special status accorded grains and wheat production in the west.

Therefore the wording of the code is warranted. The Reform Party, with Motion No. 22, is seeking to replace the words “grain vessels” with “let-go and loading of vessels and the move”. Thus they are broadening the scope of the bill by changing its content and giving everyone the same treatment. There would be no more special status.

The very particular matter of wheat's perishable nature is trivialized in total disregard of the spirit of the legislation before us.

These are two motions that reflect the profound thinking of the Reform Party, which manipulates words a bit too much, by the way. The word “reform” is being hackneyed. That is somewhat unfortunate of itself. We would hope the House will reject as vigorously as possible this sort of amendment, which is too much like a school of thought—which, we hope, will soon disappear—that of the impoverishment of the poor and the enrichment of the rich, concentration rather than distribution of wealth.

It is unfortunate that we have in this House the sort of lawyers that have become the apostles of this battle, which leads nowhere, that they are questioning the gains made by humanity at great cost, resulting in a respectable middle class in certain countries. This cannot be permitted, and we will fight it with our last breath.

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

Mr. Speaker, unless I have misunderstood, we have voted on Motions No. 11 and Motion No. 12. What would be needed now is a vote on Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, which are part of Group No. 5, and not Motions Nos. 20 and 18.

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

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 19 on page 27 with the following:

“87.2 Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing,

(2) a notice shall not be required to be given by the trade union to the employer indicating the date on which a strike will occur; and

(b) a notice shall not be required to be given by the employer to the trade union indicating the date on which a lockout will occur.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 27 with the following:

“seventy-two hours shall not be required to be given by the trade union or the employer if they wish to initiate a strike or lockout.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 38 on page 27 and lines 1 to 31 on page 28.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 38 on page 27 with the following:

“87.3 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a trade union may not declare or authorize a strike unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employees in the unit and received the approval of the majority of the employees who voted.

(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employers' organization may not declare or cause a lockout unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employers who are members of the organization and received the approval of the majority of the employers who voted.”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 28.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 31 on page 28.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 27 on page 28.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues listened carefully and, fortunately, there is a consensus on the amendments that must be made to the Canada Labour Code.

We are interested in how, based on the labour code's provisions, a vote allowing workers to go on strike or employers to initiate a lockout would be held. We object to the procedure, and we wonder where the government got this strange idea.

We feel the government is unduly trying to control, to say the least, the union in terms of how it operates and in terms of its relations with its own members. Indeed, the government is proposing a slew of means and mechanisms that have the effect of controlling the union a little too much, and this is why we are proposing these amendments.

Motion No. 11 reflects our opposition to the 72 hour notice that is required under the bill, and that is supposed to be given by the union in case of a strike or by the employer in case of a lockout.

Through this amendment, we are causing it to be withdrawn because we think there is no need for notice to be given to either party. The party that decides to hold a strike or lockout should decide on the most appropriate time to do so without necessarily being required à because this would become a requirement à to give notice to the other side that it plans to act on its decision.

Also, regarding Motion No. 12, where the 72 hour strike or lockout notice is not acted on, section 87.2(3) provides that a new notice must be given.

If only for reasons of mere logic and consistency, we object to either party having to give a new notice where the strike or lockout initially planned did not occur. That is what Motion No. 12, which we feel will be passed by this House, is all about.

Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 all concern the whole voting mechanism and the notices to be given. Once a vote has been held authorizing the union to initiate a strike, under the new Canada Labour Code as amended by Bill C-19, a strike must be initiated within 60 days of the vote.

We consider this to be an arbitrary, unnecessary deadline, which, as Canadians—which we will probably remain for a short time—would say, could cause serious organizational problems given how huge this country is.

From coast to coast, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, unions could run into serious logistical problems if they had to hold a strike within 60 days of the strike vote. Let us say, for example, that an agreement has almost been reached, and the union has decided not to strike within the 60 days provided under the law. If an agreement is not reached, another strike vote has to be held. Given the breadth of this country, we are not sure that the government is making a wise choice in imposing such a time frame.

We consider that no time period should be provided, that, once the parties have the right to strike or to lockout they may do so when they consider it appropriate, without being overly restricted, as is the case here, by a time frame of 60 days following a strike or lockout vote.

The last motions, namely Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 set out the terms of voting, the conduct of a vote and the procedure for having a vote declared invalid. We have little sympathy for this sort of government intervention in voting activities and in technicalities.

It amounts to inappropriate intrusion in the operations of the union. I think they are going after the unions. There is also provision for an individual to invalidate a vote if they are not happy with it. Labour relations are complex enough as it is, and I see no need for the government to intervene in such matters. If there is one body in this country that is not in a moral position to interfere in the business of others and tell them how to behave it is the Government of Canada.

In terms of elections—of direct concern to it—the government is in no position to give anybody lessons on how to hold a vote. We all know that returning officers in this fine country are appointed on a purely partisan basis.

In Quebec we can count on our fingers the number of federal ridings where the returning officers have qualifications other than that of having worked for the Liberal Party of Canada. They come up with such inventions as postal votes, proxy votes, which are an open invitation to all unscrupulous organizers tempted to manipulate vote outcomes. This has been done shamelessly in some Quebec ridings.

Considering how lax the federal government is with respect to the Canada Elections Act, it is in a very poor position to lecture Canada's unions on how to carry out a vote, how to declare a vote invalid and all the procedures related to that.

It might be a good thing for the Canadian Liberal government to use its own bill as a model for inserting a bit more discipline into the Canada Elections Act, in order to clean up the mess we have got into in Quebec. Such practices as going after the senior vote by pursuing them to hospital rooms, waking patients up—it has gone as far as that à going door to door not to influence the vote, as our democracy is meant to work, but to get people out to vote. So they are far indeed from being in a position to lecture others, as they are in Bill C-19.

It is most unimpressive to see this government indicating non-confidence in the way unions have always operated. The federal government is most certainly not the one who should be giving lessons to anyone in this area.

I trust that these words have cast some light on this matter.

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

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-19, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 23 with the following:

(3) The Minister may take only one action referred to in this section with respect to any particular dispute involving a bargaining unit and, in the case of one of the actions referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) or (c), the Minister may take the action only with the consent of the parties.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to take part in the debate on Bill C-19 through this logical amendment, which is consistent with the objectives of the new Canada Labour Code.

It is an amendment that might be described as ancillary, but which takes on its full meaning in the context of a labour dispute when the minister is called upon to use his authority to step in and appoint someone to resolve the dispute.

As members probably know, there are three courses open to the minister: he may appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner, or a conciliation board. I will read an extract from this clause on page 23 of the bill:

(3) The Minister may only take one action referred to in this section with respect to any particular dispute involving a bargaining unit.

That would be to appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner, or a conciliation board.

What we are adding, and to a certain extent this strengthens the intent of the legislation, is that such a decision may be taken by the minister only with the consent of the parties. If a labour dispute were dragging on and tensions were mounting, it would be a bit ridiculous for the minister to decide to step in arbitrarily, on his own initiative, and impose action that is supposed to resolve the dispute.

What we are saying is that the minister should have the consent of the parties to appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner or a conciliation board, and that this should be done in a spirit of co-operation, without which such a decision on the part of the minister might well have the effect of worsening the situation, rather than resolving it.

It is only common sense that the government intervention provided for in the legislation should be desired by the parties. If it is not, it could have an effect opposite to that intended. If the parties are not forced to consent to one of the three mechanisms available to them and thus perhaps reflect on how the situation is developing, things may get worse.

The Bloc Quebecois is introducing this sensible amendment in the hope that the government and the other opposition parties will approve it, in order to improve the Canada Labour Code for the greater good of the public.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motions No. 9 and 28 introduced by the Reform Party member, because they are related.

I think that the best way of understanding the doublespeak too often characteristic of legislation and officialdom is to read the explanatory notes provided by the government.

What we are to take from Motion No. 9 is that, because of the problems caused by the airline industry's practice of awarding successive contracts for pre-board security screening services, Transport Canada concluded, in 1988, an agreement with Canadian to protect the salaries and benefits of employees when pre-board security screening services were put out to tender. This is the policy that is codified in law.

The bill adds that it will be possible to extend the application of this provision to other sectors of activity that might, of course, be designated by regulations made by the governor in council. This has to do with the whole idea of the privatization of certain public services. Members know how popular this is right now.

It is the matter of the continuity of existing collective agreements, that is the improved general working conditions employees have managed to acquire over years, very often decades, of labour relations, particularly with respect to wages. This is what the Reform Party wants to lay open to question again.

This is most unfortunate, in our opinion, because these are social gains which have enabled us to live in what can be described as a civilized society, benefiting from the gains acquired by the labour movement at the cost of great struggle, and we must not forget this. Those gains have led to a more just society, at least in certain areas.

The Reform motion lays all of this open to question again, as it refuses to acknowledge the previous contractor, or in other words the obligation of the new contractor to provide employees with the same benefits they received before.

The Reform Party is also subtly challenging the board's ability to intervene. In order to be consistent with its own rather sneaky attack against the low wage earners, against unionized workers, it says that the board ought not to have the power to intervene under section 47.3, which deals with the previous contractor.

It wants this to be removed, which would mean the board could no longer invoke section 47.3, which applies to contractors and allows the board to require the party against which a complaint has been filed—since there is a right to file a complaint if one feels one is not being properly treated by a new contractor—to cease to contravene these requirements.

As a result of eliminating section 47.3 and the possibility of intervention if such cases do occur when there is more privatization as a result of increased deregulation and government withdrawal from certain areas, this will prevent the board from being able to order the employer to pay employees an amount equivalent to, or in excess of, the amount they would have been paid by the employer if there had not been a violation.

This gives a very good idea of the sort of mentality to be found in the official opposition, within this so-called reform party, which reforms from underneath, widens the gap between the rich and the poor and delights in the monstrous profits made by private industry, where there is no requirement to be accountable, except to the shareholders. They are almost congratulating themselves on the widening gap between the rich and the poor. They want to bring everyone down to the same level. They challenge such commendable things as unions. They challenge them instead of recognizing them.

The working conditions of the honest worker are at stake. This is what is being challenged by those who have a say, who polish their halos as they bend parliamentary procedures, as we have seen recently, and they are doing this on the backs of low income Canadians.

We must decry this with our very last breath, because, in the end, workers' dignity is at issue. The aim is to make the biggest profits with the lowest expenditure on the backs of the employees. This was curbed in the evolution of societies through the intervention of unions and the arrival of social programs. It was regulated somewhat. In today's neo-liberal context, there are lawyers of their ilk who defend the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and I think it is our job to criticize them.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the hon. member for Abitibi is not addressing Group No. 2. He is speaking to a motion which will come up later in the debate, we hope, unless the Reform Party amends it.

He is totally out of order. Not that this is not interesting but it is totally out of order when we are supposed to be looking at Group No. 2.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The negotiations between the CBC and the 1,400-member CBC communication workers union are stalled. They have been under way since March 1995. Some union members have been without a collective agreement for more than two and a half years. The points in dispute are job security, wage increases and private sector use of CBC premises.

Will the Minister of Labour respond favourably to the union's proposal of a conciliation commissioner, in order to provide these employees with a collective agreement at last?