Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to support motion M-294, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. There is absolutely no doubt that Canada's federal Labour Code needs to be amended to include a ban on replacement workers or scabs during strikes and lockouts. In fact, it is way past due.
Let me deal with the substantive part of the motion first. The use of scabs and replacement workers breeds anger on picket lines, and that anger can lead to violence, including damage to property, injury to workers and even death. Labour disputes are prolonged by the practice, with a lingering animosity that can infect a workplace for years. The Canada Labour Code governs important elements of our economy that can ill afford the threat of prolonged labour disputes, vandalism or violence. Every extra day lost through labour disputes that disrupt or slow the flow of goods across our borders hurts us all.
The same is true when important services such as passports, employment insurance or food inspection are interrupted or when transportation is delayed. Removing the ability to use scabs and replacement workers results in smoother labour relations and shorter labour disputes, with less risk to everyone involved. Quebec and British Columbia have anti-scab laws in effect today, and the results are clear. The year after B.C. changed its labour code, the province realized a 50% drop in the amount of work time lost to strikes.
Under the Quebec labour code, the average number of work days lost each year to labour disputes is about 15, compared to an average of 31 days lost each year under the Canada Labour Code. I had the great privilege of working at Queen's Park when Ontario's first minister for labour, Bob Mackenzie, banned the use of replacement workers in 1992. Unfortunately, the ban was lifted by none other than Mike Harris, who never let good public policy stand in the way of his ideological agenda.
However, the reality was that despite the rhetoric used by opponents of the law, the period during which the law was in place was characterized by fewer work stoppages, moderate union demands and picket line peace. Furthermore, in the first year following its passage, Ontario's economic growth was the highest in the entire G7.
Now we find ourselves in the midst of the great recession. One would think that even government MPs would agree that the need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of cooperation, involvement and trust is greater now than at any other time in our country's history. It is absolutely the right thing to do. That is why, just this afternoon, I tabled legislation in the House that will give effect to the motion that is before us here tonight.
People who are watching this debate at home tonight might well be wondering why we did not move straight to debating the legislation itself. As partisan as this place can occasionally get, let me say at the outset that it is not because the Bloc lacks commitment to this issue. It is quite the opposite. Members of the NDP and members of the BQ have consistently supported anti-scab legislation.
Shamefully, but equally consistently, the majority of Conservatives have opposed such legislation. The history of the Parliament's abysmal record has therefore been written by the flip-flopping Liberals, who say they support workers in this country but will not stand up for them when it counts. Three times now, a large number of Liberals voted with the majority of Conservative MPs to defeat bills that sought to outlaw the use of scabs at the federal level.
I was not in the House when the first two votes happened, but I was certainly here in the last Parliament when Bill C-257 passed at second reading. I remember the optimism in the labour movement and in the House about the possibility of anti-scab legislation finally passing. Of course, that was a vote that did not matter in the end. When push came to shove and it was time to stand up and be counted on the third and final vote, enough Liberals flip-flopped again to defeat the bill in the House.
I think we need to remind ourselves who some of those members were. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca voted yes on second reading and no on third. The member for Winnipeg South Centre voted yes on second reading and no on third. So did the members for Miramichi, Halifax West, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Mississauga—Brampton South, Brampton West, St. Paul's, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Davenport, Eglinton—Lawrence, Etobicoke Centre, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lac-Saint-Louis, Wascana and York South—Weston. They all voted yes on second reading and no on third.
Most shamefully of all, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, now the leader of the Liberal Party, voted yes on second reading and flip-flopped on third, when it counted.
All of these members are still in the House today, and I would bet that all of them will support the motion that is before us here today, but what will they do when they are asked to support more than a statement of principles, when they actually have to stand up for those principles, when they have the opportunity to vote in favour of my bill on the exact same subject?
I would bet that they will once again revert to form and defeat what just weeks earlier they said they supported. I wish every Canadian voter understood how often the Liberals have betrayed their own words as they betrayed workers over and over again.
Labour rights are human rights, and human rights are sacrosanct. They must be inviolable and should never be subject to compromise based on political opportunity. Let us be clear. For us in the NDP, these rights are absolute. We understand and believe that freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike are fundamental labour rights.
As a result, workers have the right to withhold their services if collective bargaining fails. Fair wages, a safe workplace, pay equity, health care and pensions are all hard-fought achievements of the labour movement and collective bargaining.
The one glaring omission is the one before us today. There is still no federal provision to ensure that the use of replacement workers or strikebreakers is banned in this country, and that makes absolutely no sense. If the right to strike is a labour right, then it cannot be allowed to be undermined by the use of replacement workers when a union has legally gone on strike. It is absolute hypocrisy to demand that unions bargain in good faith when companies can break the faith by hiring scabs.
The government members talk about fairness and balance, but there is absolutely nothing fair or balanced in that. It is quite the opposite.
I know what the argument is on the government side. It usually goes something like this: if workers can withhold their labour, then the company should have the right to bring someone else in to do the work, and somehow that would then be fair.
But there is no fairness in it. The company does not have to go home and face hungry children and mortgage payments they cannot meet.
If we want to make it fair, then we need to make sure that the economic pain is shared equally by both sides. We need to make sure that the company--or the government, for that matter--has no more ability to generate revenue than the workers. That is how we get close to a fair fight, and that is how we provide an incentive to both sides to get back to the bargaining table, where the emphasis is on negotiations and settlements.
That is why the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed in June 2007 that collective bargaining is a fundamental human right. The court observed three things. First, the right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work. Second, the court said collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends; rather, it is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government. Third, collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.
The Supreme Court has been unequivocal in its support for labour rights. It is time that all Liberal and Conservative members in the House did the same, and not just by supporting today's motion, but by committing publicly now that they will support the actual legislation when it next comes to the House.
