Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to this bill.
Perhaps some of my colleagues are unaware that in a previous life, before I was elected to this House on October 25, 1993, I worked in labour relations for 16 years in the pulp and paper industry for Abitibi-Price and in the food industry at Métro-Richelieu headquarters in Montreal.
Unfortunately, during my time in labour relations, I experienced some labour disputes. As you may know, workers in these two sectors are governed by the Quebec Labour Code.
It is important to note the similarities between this bill, which was presented by the Bloc Québécois, and the replacement workers provisions in the Quebec Labour Code. These Quebec Labour Code measures came into force before 1977. As an aside, in Quebec, this replacement workers bill is part of the René Lévesque and Parti Québécois legacy.
As we may recall, and I believe my memory is correct, Pierre Marois was the labour minister who reformed the Quebec Labour Code. The replacement workers measures were a critical part of his reforms.
Members may also recall that in 1976, in Longueuil, in a company now known as Pratt & Whitney—if its name has not changed due to acquisitions—and known at the time as United Aircraft, workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code experienced what happens when scabs literally cross the picket lines every day. At the time, the company decided to continue operating.
Since this law came into force in 1977 or early 1978, and since the Quebec Labour Code reforms, violence on the picket lines has dropped significantly, and labour disputes are now much shorter.
Imagine participating in a union meeting where it was decided that the balance of power was such that there was no choice but to confront the employer. I may be repeating myself, but I want to make the point that I always worked on the management side, unlike some of my colleagues in this House who were CSN vice-presidents or held permanent union positions in the FTQ or worked in the education sector. My perspective is that of someone who spent his career in labour relations on the management side.
I was at the bargaining table. In the pulp and paper industry, there was a strike from July 1, 1980, to December 16, 1980. When they were not in negotiations, managers were crossing the picket lines every day. This was done in a civilized manner.
The company, which manufactured cardboard, did not try to operate with replacement workers or managers. Instead, they thought that a balance of power needed to be established, and that negotiations would eventually produce results. In this case, it took five and a half months.
This is how a balance of power works. The company stood its ground, while the unionized workers and the CSN stood theirs. With the help of a negotiator, they eventually resolved the strike issues. The workers shut down the mill from July 1 to December 16, 1980, and it was all done without violence.
This was a long strike. Imagine what would have happened if they had used replacement workers.
Mr. Speaker, you seem like a rather peaceful person by nature. Say you have been picketing for five and a half months, and that every day workers go by in school buses with bars on the windows. They give you the finger—among other things—and literally insult you. Although you seem peaceful, as I said earlier, I think that after a while, it would only be human to get upset with the situation. This is exactly what happened before the new Labour Code in Quebec.
That brings me to my question. If this is true for workers in Quebec, and for workers in British Columbia, why would it not be so for workers whose company comes under federal jurisdiction? This legislation has had a positive impact on the violence and duration of disputes. However, if someone has the misfortune of being unionized in a company under federal jurisdiction, they are not entitled to this protection. This allows for replacement workers to cross the picket line every morning in front of the workers.
I will not repeat the list of disputes my colleague from Chambly—Borduas provided. They included Vidéotron and the dispute at Cargill, in Baie-Comeau, which lasted 42 months, I think.
Not having these anti-scab provisions upsets the balance of power to some extent. By definition, the balance of power involves two entities facing one another as equals. One party decides to close the plant, and thus, the plant cannot operate as long as that no one goes in to work. We cannot have a situation where a company continues to operate while the other workers are on the sidewalk. In that case, the balance of power no longer exists, or, at least it is quite skewed.
That is all we are asking for. I know that other hon. members want to say a few words on this. I think a member from the NDP wants to support the bill. I do not want to unduly prolong my speech. However, I am calling on the good will of the hon. members of this House, from all parties, even my colleagues from the Liberal Party who have heard the siren songs of the chambers of commerce and various lobbies. My colleagues from the Liberal Party have workers under federal jurisdiction in their ridings. Let them ask those workers whether they would like to have the same protection that exists elsewhere. Let them ask whether they agree to considered second-class workers and second-class citizens. Let them ask and we will see how those workers respond.
In closing, I am also calling on my colleagues from the Conservative Party to do the same. We know the right-wing philosophy of the Conservative Party. However, let the members of that party not forget that they were elected by workers, unionized or otherwise. By the way, some non-unionized workers agree with the anti-scab bill.
For all these reasons, I will vote with my party in favour of this bill and I am appealing to the good will of all the hon. members of this House.
