Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). This bill was specifically intended to prevent the introduction of replacement workers by federally regulated employers during a strike or lockout.
There are those who have suggested the bill somehow goes far beyond this objective and they expressed their concern specifically about the wording of the bill. It was for this reason that I presented amendments to the bill, not to undermine the intent of the bill to ban replacement workers but rather to address the concerns that had been raised.
I must report to the House my disappointment that almost all of these proposed amendments have been ruled beyond the scope of Bill C-257. These amendments were written to address concerns that have been raised about several issues. I believe that these amendments did in fact accomplish this task. I joined with the majority of my colleagues on the human resources committee in supporting these amendments fully expecting they would be found within the scope of the bill.
Let me begin by first offering a few broad observations about the issue of replacement workers. I believe one of the most important points that has sometimes been clouded during the debate on this issue is the nature of most federally regulated workplaces. By their very nature federally regulated workplaces are not the kind of environment that can be described as accommodating to the introduction of replacement workers.
First, in terms of geography we must concede that there is a significant challenge placed before any employer who would attempt to hire replacement workers. To hire replacement employees in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Halifax, for example, in the same short time span normally associated with a strike is not a logistically realistic proposal.
Second, the nature of many federally regulated workplaces is such that hiring replacement workers is in many ways neither practical nor realistic. The character of these jobs is such that considerable training is often necessary and would make little or no sense in the timeframe realities of a strike.
Third, if our objective as legislators is to protect services that are essential for the health and safety of the public, then why would replacement workers be necessary when this issue is already addressed within the Canada Labour Code?
The point I am making is that the whole concept of replacement workers at the federal level is, in most circumstances, a redundant issue.
The intent of Bill C-257 was to address those situations where the use of such workers might be considered as a tool in the collective bargaining process.
During the course of the presentations before the committee and even in discourse outside the confines of this Parliament, there have been suggestions that essential services will be undermined if Bill C-257 is adopted.
Had the proposed amendments been allowed, I do not believe this would have been the case. Under the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code, subsection 87.4(1), employers and union representatives are required to agree upon which employees will continue to work during a labour disruption. This is to protect the health and safety of the public. No strike can commence until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
If this was the concern of those opposed to the amended Bill C-257, then their fears were unfounded. To ensure that these concerns were addressed beyond any possible misunderstanding, I introduced amendments to Bill C-257 that clarified the need to protect essential services first and foremost.
There is no inconsistency here and these amendments were, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of our colleagues on the committee, fully within the scope of the bill.
I must say that I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. government House leader state on Monday that the amendments “would also dramatically expand and alter the effect of section 87.4 introducing the much broader concept of essential services”.
While I disagree with his interpretation about the scope of the bill, if he really believed they had this effect, I would have thought he would have been supportive of a broader interpretation of essential services in view of some of his reasons for opposing this bill.
Many of those who opposed this bill also presented their positions before the committee and I must confess their positions were at times difficult to reconcile.
For example, a representative of a major railway company informed the committee that since 1971 there were four strikes, with only one being resolved through negotiation. The other three ended with back to work legislation.
I find it curious that back to work legislation would have been necessary in 75% of their labour disputes considering there is currently no ban on replacement workers. Clearly, the option of using such workers had no impact on the way these disputes unfolded.
I also note that a representative of the country's private broadcasters speculated at our committee about the possible impact of a strike at a broadcaster during the Quebec ice storms several years ago. He suggested that the public might have been ill served had Bill C-257 been law and a strike was under way. This raised two questions in my mind.
First, would not alternative broadcasters, including public broadcasters, have been available to provide information to the public? Second, how does one hire replacement workers to fill positions in technical jobs like those required at broadcasting companies during a strike or lockout?
The point I am making is that there has been much bluster and misunderstanding surrounding this issue.
As a representative of the Canadian Auto Workers remarked during his presentation, the introduction of replacement workers during a strike or lockout does not assist in facilitating a resolution. Rather, it creates conflict, delays an end to most strikes and develops considerable ill will on all sides.
Clearly it is very difficult in such a short period of time to adequately discuss all the issues that have been raised around Bill C-257. However, suffice it to say that the intent of Bill C-257 is to prevent the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout at federally regulated employers.
The current law is inadequate in this regard. Basically, for a successful prosecution of an employer to take place it must be shown that the employer hired replacement workers for the express purpose of undermining the union and the bargaining process. How could this be proven in a court of law? It cannot, or at least not without almost insurmountable difficulty. This is why Bill C-257, as amended, was needed.
As for the amendments themselves, they were designed to reaffirm the principles of the Canada Labour Code with respect to essential services and to allow management to continue to work unimpeded during a strike or lockout. That is all they would do.
The decision issued in the House yesterday was indeed quite troubling for me and for many of my colleagues on this side of the House. Bill C-257 as amended by the committee represented a balance that I believe was fair to all parties. It protected essential services, ensured managers could work and set reasonable limits on monetary penalties, while of course prohibiting replacement workers.
My support for Bill C-257 was very much associated with the successful introduction of the amendments upon which the Speaker ruled yesterday. However, I can assure this House that I fully support the principle of a ban on replacement workers. We should not let this setback deter us from moving toward this fair and reasonable objective. I am most certainly committed to continue to do so.
