Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to take a bit of a different approach from the other opposition parties who have spoken already. Both the official opposition and the Bloc Quebecois have spoken against Bill C-19 for very different reasons. The NDP caucus is in favour of Bill C-19 and I would like to elaborate on some of the reasons we have taken that position.
I concur with many of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. He spoke at length about the spirit of co-operation and consultation that went into arriving at the changes to the Canada Labour Code contained in Bill C-19. That in itself is a process we want to recognize and value for future consultations. By all accounts it was truly comprehensive and thorough. All the people who should have been spoken to were and had ample opportunity to make their views known. I do not think we could have done a more comprehensive job in consultation around the country.
It has been noted already that the Canada Labour Code provides a framework for collective bargaining for over 700,000 Canadian workers. It is incumbent on us to move speedy passage of Bill C-19 for those 700,000 workers who will benefit from much of the new amendments and changes to the code in making their workplaces more fair, more balanced and more equitable.
Bill C-19 and its predecessor bill, Bill C-66, represent the first significant amendments to this legislation since the early 1970s. This is a review which we both welcome but think is long overdue.
As has been said, in June 1995 the task force chaired by Andrew Sims conducted a complete review of the code and recommended these legislative changes. The task force held public hearings and the working group of labour and management officials was able to reach consensus on a number of key issues. Its report “Seeking a Balance” was publicly released in February of 1996 and in April of that year the Minister of Labour held meetings in a variety of locations to hear the views of all interested parties who cared to make a contribution.
Bill C-66, unfortunately, was awaiting third reading in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved for the federal election. Were it not for that we would be enjoying some of the benefits of the bill today.
To his credit, the current Minister of Labour has continued consultations with interested parties and while there have been changes to the wording of a few provisions, notably those dealing with replacement workers and off site workers, we are satisfied that these changes do not substantially alter the intent of the clauses and we are therefore pleased to report that our caucus can support Bill C-19. Like most Canadians, we look forward to its speedy passage through the House of Commons.
I commend those who participated in the process from labour, management and government for the work they have done in arriving at these changes. I believe they have demonstrated a spirit of co-operation which is essential when dealing in matters of industrial relations, and their ability to do so bodes well for the long term stability which we all seek to achieve in this country's labour relations climate.
The NDP caucus believes that the Canada Labour Code, like any labour relations act, can and should be an instrument which fosters industrial relations harmony, economic stability and labour peace. We believe that the proposed amendments bring this legislation that much closer to those principles.
We commend the proposed amendments which call for the establishment of a truly representational Canada industrial labour relations board composed of a neutral chair and members from both labour and management. We believe this is a positive step which will more closely resemble the composition of provincial labour relations boards and which will be very much a vast improvement over the current Canada Labour Relations Board.
We also applaud the fact that the newly configured board will be given greater flexibility to deal quickly with urgent or time sensitive matters. It will be a dramatic improvement when a single vice-chair will be able to determine some cases rather than waiting for the current three member panel which would be required to hear cases in the current configuration.
The current board structure has often been unable to respond quickly to matters brought before it, even when a delay can seriously jeopardize the case of the applicant, and we are critical that as many as 90 applications for certification are currently pending and waiting to be heard, especially when it is well known and well documented that unreasonable delays often cause the erosion of the applicant union's support in matters of application for certification. We feel this situation is unfair to working people who have applied to be represented by a union of their choice and we hope that the matter can be corrected quickly by the introduction of these amendments.
Proposals under the category of representation and successor rights recognize the right of the employers to communicate with employees during union organizing drives. We caution the government that the proposed language in this clause has not been tested and that there is a great deal of room for abuse in provisions of this kind.
Anyone who is familiar with industrial relations knows that it is common practice for employers to try to thwart union organizing drives by using threats of plant closure, layoff or other negative consequences which are allegedly stemming from the employees' choice to form or join a union.
It is our belief that employers should be barred completely from communicating with employees in any matter pertaining to their right to join or to form a union. Even the most subtle interference by an employer can intimidate an employee in these situations.
For these reasons we are glad that other amendments in Bill C-19 enable the board to remedy such unfair labour practices by granting automatic certification to an applicant union despite lack of evidence of majority support from the employees if the board is of the opinion that unfair labour practices such as threats or intimidation or coercion have made it impossible to determine the true wishes of the employees by use of a secret ballot because they fear some kind of negative reprisal from the employer.
This provision is similar to what already exists in a number of provincial jurisdictions and it is very important and key to the fairness of the whole organizing process.
Another important provision under this category enables the board to give an applicant union a list of names and addresses of off site employees who might work at home or some place other than the normal work place.
This amendment we feel reflects the changing nature of the workplace, and more and more workers have non-traditional work arrangements and may not be present at an employer's main workplace when a union organizer comes to distribute information.
So it is only fair and reasonable that these workers who work at home or elsewhere should have access to the same information, the same literature the union might be promoting in the same way that it is only fair that they have a right to accept or reject the union's overtures. The union should have the right to communicate with all the employees in the bargaining unit and we applaud this measure.
Bill C-19 also contains positive amendments designed to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties during legal strikes and lockouts. It is understood there will be no general prohibition on the use of scabs during a legal strike or lockout. The use of scabs for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity will be considered an unfair labour practice.
I agree fully with the previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois that this language does not go far enough to protect the rights of workers and in fact many unions that made representation to the Sims task force spoke very strongly that absolute anti-scab legislation was necessary in any fair and civilized country that truly is trying to balance its labour relations climate. The province of Quebec is a good example, and I am glad the previous speaker spoke very eloquently about the impact of anti-scab legislation in that province.
It is true the statistics and the empirical evidence bear out the fact that anti-scab legislation results in fewer strikes, shorter strikes, less picket line violence, in fact no picket lines because you do not need a picket line. Picket lines are designed to keep scabs out. It is simply the right thing to do.
We are very disappointed and we are very critical that Bill C-19 does not give workers the satisfaction. We are certainly not satisfied that we have done enough in this regard. This provision falls well short of true anti-scab legislation. At best it is a very weak compromise position. It just barely recognizes the legitimacy of the arguments associated with the use of scabs in strikes and lockouts. The empirical evidence is easily available from as close as the province of Quebec.
Obviously we wish this language were much stronger. It is not meant to be in this round of amendments to the labour code. As such, there was a great deal of give and take and compromise in the development of these amendments. This is one of those things not meant to be in 1997.
We are, however, pleased that the code will guarantee that employees who are on strike or locked out will return to work before any scabs hired to replace them. In other words, there will be job protection for employees who are forced out of their jobs by either strike or lockout. They will go back to work first of course and they will have priority in any hiring.
The jury is in on this one. There can be no doubt of the basic fairness of this issue. I think even my colleague from the Reform Party would have to agree that it is only right and it is only fair.
It is clear that a great deal of time and energy was spent by the task force looking for ways to ensure that work stoppages do not endanger public health and safety, and also to maintain grain exports during work stoppages involving port operations. Those two things were key and paramount and had to be dealt with.
Under the new legislation the parties will be required to maintain certain services necessary to prevent danger to public health or safety during a work stoppage.
While the grain handlers and their employers will retain the right to strike and the right to lockout, services to grain vessels will be maintained. That point should be made very clearly and people should understand that there is nothing to stop the grain handlers or their employers from striking. It is not a no-strike clause. But grain will continue to go through even if there is a strike or a lockout or a work stoppage of any kind.
We feel this aspect of the code is of great interest to the farm community, to the agricultural industry and to the Canadian economy in general. These changes will address once and for all concerns about work stoppages interfering with the marketing of our grain exports and I am confident that all parties can see the value in this amendment.
Again, this is one of those areas where there was a great deal of generosity and good will and compromise from all the parties around the table because it was brought as an issue to the task force. The task force recognized that it is in the common good that grain should go through and in fact it has resolved it once and for all.
It is the nature of this type of legislation that we are never going to please everybody and no stakeholder is going to be fully satisfied that all of their concerns are addressed, but in this instance I suggest it is the best we can do and I hope all the parties can see fit to support it on this basis if for no other reason.
Even they do not like other aspects of this bill, this clause alone, the movement of grain, is of such critical importance that all parties should be getting behind Bill C-19 to deal with it.
However, in the case of Bill C-19, we are doing better than average. A diverse cross-section of associations and organizations approve of Bill C-19. They range fully from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the Canadian Labour Congress and all the groups in between. They believe that these amendments to Bill C-19 are the right thing to do and are a positive step forward.
We are optimistic that all the parties in the House of Commons can see the value of these amendments to the Canada Labour Code and will vote in favour of Bill C-19 when called on to do so.
We should always remember that we have an enviable labour relations climate in this country. As the Minister of Labour pointed out, almost all negotiations under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code are resolved with no time lost and no strike, no lockout, no labour unrest whatsoever. A figure as high as 95% to 97% of all the bargaining and all the collective agreements are settled peacefully and amicably with both parties getting what they need through the collective bargaining process.
It is a myth that the country loses significant productivity due to strikes and lockouts. We will often have negative people saying this. In actual fact in the province of Manitoba we lose about 50,000 person days a year to strikes and lockouts. It sounds like a lot, except we lose 500,000 days a year to workplace injuries, accidents and illness.
If we are really serious about productivity and about the economic impact of lost time due to work stoppages, cleaning up our work places would do a lot more good than being a nattering nabob and griping about strikes and lockouts all the time when in actual fact it is a myth. We have created a tempest in a teapot for ideological reasons. The actual facts do not bear it out.
Those who criticize this country's labour laws and regulations and those who think that unions cause a lot of strikes and lockouts usually do not know the facts. They do not know the facts and figures like the numbers I just gave.
The facts are collective bargaining does not in itself cause a significant loss of productive time. Therefore measures are not necessary to try to address that. It is unsafe workplaces, I argue, that cause the significant loss of productivity.
Our caucus supports the changes to part I of the labour code but we ask this government to go further. We ask this government to move quickly to review part II and part III of the Canada Labour Code, and some steps in those directions are already under way, so that we can really update and revamp the entire code to make it a more balanced and fair piece of legislation, especially in the case of part II which deals with workplace safety and health.
The time has come for Canadians to take seriously the issue of workplace safety and health, if not for ethical reasons or the obvious downside of people getting injured, for the economic reasons I have pointed out, the hundreds of thousands of productive days lost to workplace injuries. Surely if we can put a man on the moon we can design methods of production that do not result in significant harm to workers.
It has always been a sore point for me that workplace injuries and workplace deaths rarely make the newspapers. If someone is stabbed or murdered in the streets of Winnipeg it is going to be front page news. However if someone is injured on the job, we somehow resign ourselves to the fact that some industries are dangerous, people get hurt, accidents happen. This is simply not true. We cannot tolerate it and we should not be tolerating that kind of an attitude.
In Manitoba there are fatal workplace accidents every year. There are enough amputated limbs, digits and toes to fill a pick-up truck every year. It is a graphic illustration about how unsafe our workplaces really are. We really do not know how many are slowly being poisoned by some kind of chemical soup they are forced to work with or the impact of various types of chemicals when harmless chemical A meets with harmless chemical B and if our kidneys create chemical C which is in fact harmful to the workers.
Maybe I am hypersensitive about this particular issue. When I was young, age 18 to 20, I worked in the asbestos mines in the Yukon. At that time asbestos was not recognized as an occupational hazard. Workers compensation did not cover asbestos because it denied it was bad for us. When we asked if it was true that this stuff was supposed to be bad for us, the foreman would say “No, it is harmless so do not worry about it”. As a result we were covered with the stuff. It gets up your nose, it gets in your ears, it gets under your armpits and it is on your clothes when you go home.
In actual fact, within two years of quitting the mine and being lied to by those people who did know better, an announcement was made internationally that there was no such thing as a safe level asbestos. One part per billion is too much asbestos. It is carcinogenic and it is hazardous at any level.
That is the kind of example we are dealing with. We do not know how many substances are like that in workplaces. It is that much more critical that we have to revamp the labour code to offer real, solid protection to Canadian workers.
We do have WHMIS. We have WHMIS legislation. We have the right to refuse unsafe work. We do not have it updated and modernized and clearly stated so that it can act in a way that will protect the interest of working people.
As much as we are in favour of part I of the code, we strongly encourage the government to move quickly on part II and part III, finish the job and move forward with it.
In terms of workers and taking care of themselves in hazardous conditions, any further amendments to the code must have some recognition of whistle blowing protection. Workers do not dare sound the alarm for unsafe conditions for fear of being slapped with a lawsuit.
I speak again from my personal background. I shut down a job one time because the scaffolding was so dangerous that it was a hazard to the people working there. Within a few days that same scaffolding fell over on to the emergency room of a hospital. It punctured the roof, caused half a million dollars in damage and almost killed a bunch of people waiting for medical services in the emergency room.
The case went to court, the judge found the company not guilty and there was no fault or blame assigned. The company sued me for turning the company in and saying that it had unsafe working conditions on site. It wanted $80,000 damages because I damaged the reputation of the company by saying its scaffolding was unsafe when it fell over on to the hospital. I was okay. I was working for a union and the union picked up my tab. Normal workers do not have that protective umbrella. Without some kind of whistle blowing protection they would never be able to protect themselves.
We urge the speedy passage of Bill C-19.
