Mr. Speaker, what the Conservative member just said is interesting. I do not know if he is unfamiliar with the law or the file, or if he did not take an interest in the matter or if someone wrote his speech for him. I will be examining three elements broached by the Conservative member. The first concerns essential services. Of course we must maintain essential services in the event of a strike. I understand that. Had he dug a little deeper he would already know that section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code states the following:
During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.
This section is clearly designed to ensure that essential services will be available to the public. Thus, what the member said earlier does not hold water because this section of the Canada Labour Code ensures that employers are covered when it comes to essential services. That is my first point.
Second, the member referred to the report of the Sims task force. I will provide him with a better understanding of this report because I am convinced that he has never read it and heard about it from someone else. The use of scabs results in frustration, animosity and violence. It prolongs conflicts significantly. Statistics show that this is true. Allow me to return to the famous Sims report. I note that opponents of the bill find it useful. However, the report is full of major contradictions, leading me to put some of its proposals and statistics into perspective. According to Andrew Sims, the main author of the report, in 1991 and 1994, in Canada, 75% of employers with a labour conflict did not use replacement workers during strikes. Why? Because rather than creating animosity among certain workers they preferred to maintain stable relations with them. That is what the Sims report says.
The other 25% of employers, however—who were party to 12 labour conflicts in which 48% of the employees involved were governed by the Canada Labour Code—did hire scabs. Scabs should not be used to shut out the union or undermine its role. It is important to show that employers who use scabs do so precisely in order to freeze out the union, as confirmed by complaints of unfair practices and statements from the strikers themselves. They say that the issue can go to court. Then the court hears that the unions are not being recognized because they do not have the power to negotiate with the employer. Employers have the upper hand because, under the Canada Labour Code, they can hire scabs. Employers can crush the unions if they want. Under the Canada Labour Code, workers have no power to negotiate. How can they conduct proper negotiations with their employers if they have no power because scabs go in to take their places? It has to be frustrating to be on the picket line, watching scabs show up to do the work. How frustrating.
There is another issue nobody ever considers when hiring scabs, and that is workplace health and safety. The Canada Labour Code governs that too. Employers hire people who have no work experience whatsoever to work in any sector they please. Employers tell them, “Come on over guys, come work here today. Do not worry about health and safety. Do not worry about training. We have to produce. We cannot lose any money.” Employers get scabs to come and work because the real workers refuse to work, because according to the law they have the right to strike.
That right is the only way workers have to stand up for themselves when negotiating a collective agreement. They can say that they are not being paid well enough and that the non-monetary clauses should be adjusted. It is the only time they can stand up and tell the employer as equals what clauses they would like to have added to or changed in their collective agreement.
Today, labour contracts are negotiated. Interestingly, collective agreements used to have terms of a year or two, and for a time they extended for three years. Now, labour contracts run for six to ten years. People can project what will happen tomorrow. They can do that in collective agreements, but the government cannot even figure out whether we are in a recession or an economic crisis while it is happening. During the most recent election campaign, we saw that it did not even know that there was a recession even though we were in the middle of an economic crisis.
How can workers negotiate a 7-year or 10-year collective agreement and predict what wages will be in 10 years? Workers negotiate in good faith with the employer to reach an agreement. They want to keep working for the employer, and they hope the company will continue to grow exponentially so that they will earn good wages. They consent to an agreement with a 7-year or 10-year term.
But when the collective agreement expires and they exercise their right to strike or the employer locks them out, a third party, the strikebreaker, cannot be allowed to take the worker's place. This impedes workers' right to collective bargaining. Employers and members from other parties say that the company must not lose contracts or money.
The workers, for their part, work their butts off—some even die working. There are so many work-related injuries. Despite safety measures, people get injured, lose their limbs, even lose their lives. Some people give their lives for the company. Then, when the workers want to negotiate in good faith, employers laugh in their faces and tell them that if they do not want to work or are not happy with their pay, they are free to leave. Employers know that others will take their places and will be happy to work.
We have seen this happen in the past, in cases like Radio Nord. That conflict lasted so long that the scabs demanded to be unionized. What a paradox. Employees were locked out and others came to take their places, then the employer treated them so badly that they decided to unionize. Replacement workers cannot be accredited and given rights that do not exist when workers who are already unionized are striking just outside. That makes no sense.
That is why it is so important for us to get rid of replacement workers, of scabs, so that the two parties can have proper negotiations. If we get rid of scabs, there will be fewer conflicts, and any conflicts that do arise will not last nearly as long. The member said that labour conflicts in Quebec last a lot longer than conflicts in sectors governed by the Canada Labour Code. That is not true. The latter last much longer, simply because replacement workers can take over a company for years if they want to. We have seen replacement workers take unionized workers' jobs for a year, two or even three. That is why the conflicts last forever. The employer does not have to negotiate with the workers.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for listening. You have listened closely to what I have been saying, and I appreciate that.
