Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the anti-scab bill and the minister's commitment to table such legislation, which was supposed to be done some time in December.
In March 1994, in my riding near Sept-Îles, at the QNS & L Company, 300 employees were in a legal strike position and were locked out. The strike or labour dispute was to go on for three months. As soon as the dispute started, the employer rushed to hire scabs.
So, as you can imagine, this led to violence and did not creative a climate conducive to bargaining with respect and dignity by the workers and the employer. The emphasis was on confrontation throughout the process, and there was no attempt to reach an agreement because scabs had been hired.
Last week, I travelled to Decatur, Illinois, with Ogilvie Mills workers belonging to the CSN, who joined fellow workers who are also on strike, sympathized a little, and tried to meet the head of the business in Decatur, where Ogilvie has its headquarters. To all intents and purposes, I have never seen anything like Decatur in my life, although I have witnessed many labour disputes. I was involved in the union movement for a while before being elected to the House of Commons, so I knew what to expect, but it was the first time I saw anything like that. Decatur could be called Dictature City or Scab City, as the people over there call it. It is the same thing.
If you want to work, all you have to do is show up at Decatur. ADM owners hire, on the spot, workers they then send to one of the many places where there is a labour dispute, to work as scabs, because at Decatur, it is normal to work as a scab. So, this creates a climate of incredible violence. Bargaining is the establishment of a power relationship between two groups and in turn, this power relationship creates respect, which ensures that everything will be done in a dignified manner. Then, once this is established, you can talk about a clean, decent labour contract. But as long as there is no anti-scab legislation in place, this cannot be achieved.
In front of the Ogilvie Mills workers here on Parliament Hill on September 19, the minister promised to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban strike-breaking. He was to bring in a bill making the required changes to the code. This sounded rather interesting. But more recently, on December 4 to be exact, the minister backed away, claiming that his department was preparing another bill, a bill on pay equity, which really has nothing to do with anti-scab legislation.
So, based on that, I wonder, and I repeat the question I asked earlier: how can the minister justify his about-face on the need to incorporate anti-scab amendments into the Canada Labour Code? How does he explain this about-face, as I asked him before, except as an act of obvious lack of political courage?