CONTENTS
Monday, March 3, 1997
Bill C-341. Motion for second reading 8475
Bill C-66. Consideration at report stage 8482
(Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 10 withdrawn.) 8482
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 8482
(Motion No 1 negatived) 8486
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 8486
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 8490
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 8491
Motions No. 45 and 49 8491
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 8497
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 8497
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 8498
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 8498
Division on Motion No. 45 deferred 8498
Division on Motion No. 49 deferred 8498
Division on Motion No. 50 deferred 8498
Division on Motion No. 54 deferred 8499
Motions Nos. 41 and 51 8499
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8503
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8504
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8504
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8504
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8505
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8506
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8506
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8506
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8506
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8506
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8506
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8510
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8510
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8510
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8510
Bill C-377. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8513
Motion moved and agreed to 8513
motion for concurrence in 57th report 8514
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8514
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8514
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8515
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8515
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8515
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8515
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8515
Bill C-66. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 11 and 12 8518
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 8520
Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 36. 8521
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 8526
Division on Motion No. 14 deferred 8526
Division on Motion No. 36 deferred 8526
Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 8526
Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 8527
Motions Nos. 39 and 44 8527
Bill C-66. Consideration resumed of report stage 8529
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 8533
Division on Motion No. 18 deferred 8533
Division on Motion No. 33 deferred 8533
Division on Motion No. 34 deferred 8533
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30 8533
Bill C-66. Consideration resumed of report stage motionsin Group No. 7 8542
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 8542
Division on Motion No. 28 deferred 8542
Division on Motion No. 29 deferred 8543
Division on Motion No. 32 deferred 8543
Motions Nos. 26, 31 and 42 8543
Division on Motion No. 26 deferred 8545
Division on Motion No. 31 deferred 8545
Division on Motion No. 42 deferred 8546
Division on Motion No. 27 deferred 8554
Division on Motion No. 37 deferred 8554
Division on Motion No. 40 deferred 8555
Motions No. 48, 52, 53 8555
Division on Motion No. 46 deferred 8559
Division on Motion No. 47 deferred 8559
Division on Motion No. 48 deferred 8559
Division on Motion No. 52 deferred 8559
Division on Motion No. 53 deferred 8559
8475
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 3, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that I have
received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has
occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Warren Allmand
Esq., member for the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, by
resignation effective February 24, 1997.
Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of
Canada Act, on Monday, February 24, 1997, I have addressed my
warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of
election for the said electoral district.
[English]
It being 11 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The Speaker: The order for second reading of Bill C-341
standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Harper, the former
member for Calgary West, cannot be moved. Unless the House
decides otherwise, the motion will be dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence on the Order Paper.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enter into discussions with
provincial governments to limit the social assistance available to failed refugee
claimants who are remaining in Canada to make appeals to the courts and transfer the
onus of providing further assistance to these individuals to immigrant and refugee aid
societies and other organizations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion, which calls on the government
to reduce the financial burden of failed refugee claimants on
Canada's social assistance network, is the result of considerable
research and communication with a number of organizations and
agencies in this country, in particular in the province of Ontario.
At the outset I wish to say that there is little question that
Canadians willingly accept the responsibility of providing safe
refugee accommodation to an internationally proportionate number
of refugee seekers. In fact, Canadians welcome the opportunity to
provide a new home to those who through no fault of their own are
persecuted or displaced by political events and turmoil.
To be clear, Canadians do not want to stop accepting refugees. To
be equally clear, that is not what this motion is about. What this
motion is about is to recognize that failed refugee claimants can
represent a tremendous burden to Canadian taxpayers.
Consequently, the federal government should limit the opportunity
for failed refugee claimants to receive welfare.
In the context of this debate let us define what criteria are used to
determine an individual refugee.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees cares for
and repatriates or resettles some five million refugees and
displaced persons each year. A distinction must be made between a
displaced person and a convention refugee.
A displaced person is one who, as the result of a natural disaster
or political turmoil, has been rendered homeless and who is outside
his or her own country. A convention refugee is one who, because
of membership in a particular political or social group, religion,
race or nationality, cannot return to his or her home country for fear
of serious persecution. Obviously not all displaced persons are
convention refugees. Most can, at one time or another, be
repatriated.
According to UN estimates there are approximately 20 million
displaced persons or refugees in the world, but only approximately
60,000 of them are genuine convention refugees. This number is
particularly important. In 1993, when I acted as the party's
immigration critic, the immigration department claimed that
Canada had accepted about 25,000 convention refugees. This
position was maintained by the immigration department despite
the fact that the UN said that only about 25,000 of those 60,000
convention refugees who were in need of immediate resettlement
were resettled worldwide. In other words, there were something in
the neighbourhood of 35,000 convention refugees who needed a
new home who could not be placed anywhere. Yet our country,
through our refugee determination process, took in somewhere
around
8476
35,000. If we took in 35,000 through our process, why were there
still 35,000 genuine refugees not placed? That is the question that
begs to be answered. Unfortunately I have received no answer to
that dilemma from the Liberal government.
(1110)
An hon. member: And never will.
Mr. Hanger: And never will, as my colleague points out. The
question has been asked numerous times.
In my travels to many of the points of entry in this country, I
have determined there is a flow of refugee claimants, tens of
thousands a year, coming into the country, and many are
determined not to be true refugees.
Consider the border crossing at Fort Erie. In 1993 over 7,000
entered through that port and claimed refugee status. By law,
according to the present situation at least, the department of
immigration is obliged to give them oral hearings.
Of the 30,000 to 35,000 who claim refugee status every year,
slightly under half are really accepted as refugee claimants. That
leaves in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20,000 who have been
rejected as refugee claimants. We can read in the 1994-1995
estimates on immigration the cost that has been initiated by the
department of immigration for hearing a claimant, a failed
claimant, in our process through our court system once that
individual has arrived here.
The figure from those estimates is between $30,000 and $50,000
per claimant. Of course, much of that cost is generated as a result of
the state's having to support the claimant. Unfortunately many of
the refugees do not speak the language and are not really expected
to either. The provisions for refugee claimants will certainly be
different than they would be for those who immigrate through
normal channels. It is understood that many refugees will not have
the skills, which I believe for the most part is acceptable to
Canadians.
However, a failed claimant with an estimated cost of $30,000 to
$50,000-I have heard that estimate as high as $100,000 per
claimant-is a substantial burden to the taxpayer. Those claimants
are supported at every turn by the present government. It is tax
dollars that support them, although they are not legitimate
claimants.
The reasons for this motion is to see that some form of
communication be established with the provincial counterparts to
curb this excessive cost and to take much swifter action for
removal if the claimant is not legitimate.
On the issue of cost, there are 15,000 to 20,000 illegitimate
claimants at a cost of between $30,000 and $50,000 per claimant.
What does that add up to? We are talking about legal aid, welfare
costs, support services right across the board, many of which are
downloaded on to the provinces. There is a hit on the three levels of
government, federal, provincial and municipal.
The motion I have presented here speaks to that concern. It
certainly speaks to the concern of a lot of Canadians who are aware
of what is happening. However, many are not aware. It is
incumbent on opposition to point these very glaring discrepancies
out. Unfortunately the government across the way chooses to
ignore much of the concerns expressed. It chooses to ignore what a
lot of people have been telling it.
(1115)
Why is it that the government refuses to deal with an issue that is
so clear? From my experience thus far and from those people I have
spoken to at this point I have come to one conclusion. The
government is not listening to the concerns of the average person.
It is listening to a very small group of special interests, many of
whom are supported by and receive compensation from federal
government grants. Lobbyists, advocates of all sorts, and
consultants are seeking to keep the situation as is and for it not to
be changed.
The public is growing weary of having to contend not only with
the burden of cost but with some of the problems that have resulted
because of poor screening processes of those people who are
accepted as refugee applicants.
The list of concerns grows. It has become clear through several
examples of refugee claimants-and I say claimants and not
refugees themselves-being accepted in the country who were not
given any status whatsoever and were involved in some very
violent crimes. Many of those individuals have a tendency to be
protected by the state in spite of the fact that they have been a
burden on the state and should be removed immediately.
There have been clear violations of some individuals coming
from overseas who have the means. They have the money or the
wherewithal to end up in this country. They also have this very
questionable chequered past. Mr. Abdirahman is one such
individual who has been cited as having been involved in genocide
in his own country. The list can be extended beyond what presently
exists that may have hit the news. The recommendations and the
policies set forth by the Liberal government encourage for some
unknown reason selection of people like Mr. Abdirahman and those
from questionable organizations in other countries of the world.
8477
To my way of thinking and the thinking of a lot of Canadians
these are not acceptable refugees. Certainly they are running from
something else, but many of them should be tried in their own
countries for some of the things they have done.
Let us get back to the point in question, the support level
generated by both the federal and provincial governments because
of federal legislation of those who have failed in their claim. When
a claimant has failed in his application to be accepted as a refugee it
is clear that the government should withdraw services. Why should
legal aid continue to be pumped into the inexhaustive appeal
process to follow? Why should the people of this country have to
pay continually through their tax dollars for the support of such
individuals?
It is obvious the average Canadian has not been heard in this
debate at all.
(1120)
When the matter was first raised in the House there was reaction
from the other side, from some of the special interest groups and
from the immigration bar association trying to squelch debate on
the topic. The terms so often used were: ``You are discriminatory.
Those are racist comments''. Is that what government and debate
have resorted to, to squelch a legitimate issue? Those comments
are wearing rather thin.
The Reform Party has put forward some proposals. In 1994-95
my office printed a document on a proactive approach to the
protection of refugees in Canada. It is an alternative and it is
important that we look at alternatives.
The Reform Party is suggesting the target number of persons
accepted by Canada as convention refugees should stabilize at
approximately 10 per cent of the total immigration intake.
We have talked about immigration levels. There has always been
a history of fluctuation in the immigration levels in Canada, up
until the last few years when it has been extremely high and there
has been no adjustment or opportunity for the newcomers to
integrate into Canada, into society and into the workforce. As a
result other tensions have built up.
We are suggesting that it be 10 per cent of the total intake, in or
around 15,000. The target of immigration levels would be 150,000
per year or thereabouts. The number of self-declared refugees
arriving at our ports of entry would be sharply reduced if the word
was clear out there in the immigration and refugee channels. It is
known worldwide that Canada is a soft touch. All they have to do is
land on our shores and declare they are refugees. Then they are
entitled to all the support the Liberal government liberally
generates in that direction.
With this restriction, and making it clear that the level of support
on these appeals will not occur, the numbers will drop. The number
of persons accepted as convention refugees through the inland
determination process would be sharply reduced.
What will that do? It will open up slots for legitimate refugees.
On the compassionate side of things that is what we should look at,
not what we are experiencing here where legitimate refugees are
being shut out because of a process that pays no heed to them. The
inland process must be sharply curbed. With this form of
communication to provincial governments since many on the
provincial side are footing the bill in some respects although there
are social transfer payments, it would be more of a legitimate
concern expressed to the Canadian people and much more
acceptable than what is happening at the present time.
To make sure the balance takes place it is our suggestion that the
Government of Canada work in conjunction with the UN first to
identify those who are legitimate. Second, it never hurts to have a
watchdog over the process and encourage the UN representatives to
examine our record of refugee determination.
There is a need for trade-offs. Looking at it from the
compassionate side, Canada is doing an injustice to tens of
thousands of genuine refugees overseas who are much easier to
settle than those involved in the expensive inland determination
process, many of whom are actually queue jumpers of the
immigration line.
(1125)
I encourage members across the way to give serious
consideration to the motion. We are entering a time of substantial
restraint This is one area that can be shored up and supported by the
Liberal government.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on the
government side certainly encourage debate on this topic. It is very
important to all Canadians.
Over the years our country has developed a reputation as a good
international citizen. We take our responsibilities to others very
seriously. When we sign a deal or shake hands with a partner we
know they are getting a good deal from Canada. They respect our
abilities for doing that.
We have always played a role of honest broker. Many times it is
a role that suits us very well. This is something of which I know
every member of the House is very proud. People know they can
count on Canada when the chips are down.
This has shone through our actions over the last 50 years. We can
see it in our commitment to United Nations peacekeeping, a
Canadian invention. Canadians have worn the blue beret with a
great deal of pride in hot spots around the world.
8478
It shows in our commitment to third world development.
Organizations like CIDA have allowed disadvantaged areas to gain
the skills and expertise they need to promote sustainable growth
and development.
We can see it in our support of international organizations like
UNICEF and the World Health Organization. We can see it in our
commitment to offering protection to refugees and people fleeing
misery and death. Our humanitarian record is second to none. It
should be a source of pride.
Over the last 50 years we have provided a safe haven in the
world of desperation and fear. We have been a symbol of hope to
people who have come all but a circle of very difficult times. We
have given refuge to those who have been subjected to experiences
almost beyond our imagination.
We have been compassionate in both word and deed. We have
not allowed our hearts to cloud our heads. At no time have we let
our desire to make difference override our common sense.
This is reflected in our refugee determination system. It is a fair
system that balances our desire to help others with our clear need to
protect Canadians and the integrity of the institutions we value. It is
a good system that has been recognized as being one of the world's
best.
I understand the hon. member's concern that there are people
abusing the system and taking advantage of our generosity. That is
clearly unacceptable. The refugee determination system is
designed to protect individuals who most need it, individuals who
through no fault of their own are in desperate circumstances. It is
not a back door for unscrupulous people wanting to circumvent
proper immigration channels.
We need to guard against these few criminals because their very
presence impacts on the reputation of our system and causes us to
lose sight of the plight of genuine refugees. That is why safeguards
are in place. We have good screening methods to make sure that
people who are not convention refugees are identified and dealt
with properly.
I understand there is concern about failed refugee claimants
accessing Canada's social assistance programs. I share this
concern. However, to suggest that these people simply be cut off
betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the refugee
determination system and the plight which many people in the
system face.
(1130)
Implicit in the motion is the idea that all failed refugee claimants
are trying to abuse the system. It suggests that because someone in
the refugee determination system is not found to be a convention
refugee, they must be trying to pull a fast one on the Canadian
people and should be punished. This simply is not the case. In fact,
it could not be more wrong.
The definition of a refugee was set out in the 1951 United
Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. It established
that a refugee is someone outside his or her country of origin who
could not return home for fear of persecution for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a
particular social group. Over the last five decades this definition
has worked well and has proven to be flexible enough to deal with
many different types of persecution.
However, there are exceptional circumstances where it does not
necessarily fit. In these cases men and women are declared failed
refugee claimants even though they find themselves in desperate
situations. Does the hon. member really want to punish these
individuals at their time of crisis?
I am happy to say that the system looks out for these cases.
Mechanisms have been built into the system to take care of people
in exceptional circumstances. There are provisions for judicial
review in certain circumstances. There is a built-in risk assessment
in the system as well. It ascertains the potential risk that failed
refugee claimants may face should they return to their country of
origin. This allows us to identify whether or not removing a person
from a country of origin will constitute a real threat to the person's
life.
Finally, there is also the potential for a humanitarian and
compassionate review if a claimant feels that his or her case merits
special attention due to extenuating circumstances. These are all
means to ensure that people who genuinely need help get it.
Perhaps I should clarify something. These are the exceptions, not
the rule. That is why we continue to be vigilant about finding and
removing people who do not merit our humanitarian concerns. That
is why we are making every effort to ensure that people do not
linger in the system for longer periods of time. The key is not to
punish people who are in the system. It is to make sure that people
get in and out of the system as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The government recently introduced two measures to do just
that. The first, Bill C-49, proposes to reduce refugee hearing panels
from two members to one, thereby allowing quicker scheduling of
hearings and faster decisions.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also introduced
proposed regulatory changes to streamline the risk assessment
process for failed refugee claimants. Under these proposed changes
the risk review will no longer be automatic. Instead failed refugee
claimants will have to apply. For some, the review is just a
formality and therefore a way to delay the process. The proposed
changes will ensure that appropriate risk reviews are done
thoroughly and efficiently.
It has been said that a country can be judged by the way it treats
the most vulnerable in its society. By this criteria I think Canada
has a lot to be proud of. We take care of our people. We feel the
8479
obligation to share our prosperity with others. We have developed
humanitarian policies which are fair and compassionate but they
also make sense. They recognize that we cannot help everyone and
that we must target our resources to helping those who most need
our protection.
The motion before the House does not recognize certain realities
of the refugee determination process or the situation of individuals
using the system. It was developed from a false premise that those
who have been found not to be convention refugees are scoundrels
and should be punished. That is faulty reasoning which is reflected
in a faulty motion the House should not support.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to have this opportunity to speak to Motion M-126, tabled on
February 27, 1996 by the member for Calgary Northeast.
With this motion, the Reform member is asking the federal
government to enter into discussions with the provinces in order to
limit the social assistance available to failed refugee claimants who
appeal or challenge the ruling concerning their status. Furthermore,
the motion also suggests that immigrant and refugee aid societies
be responsible for supporting and helping these individuals.
This motion is typical and representative of Reform values and
of its anti-immigrant and anti-refugee policy. That party is hostile
to strangers and minorities. It disregards the history of Canada and
forgets that it was built on immigration and that it needs
immigrants to survive as a prosperous nation. That is the case
especially in Alberta, where the member's riding is located, and in
the other western provinces.
Is the author of this motion unaware of the fact that social
assistance comes under provincial jurisdiction and that the federal
government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in that area? Ottawa has
no business interfering with the rules governing access to social
assistance. Therefore, this motion is unacceptable because it leads
to direct federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Also, this motion transfers the financial onus from governments to
immigrant and refugee aid organizations, which is totally
unreasonable and unjustified.
We must remember that these not-for-profit organizations lack
the necessary funds to take on such financial responsibilities. Since
it came to office, the Liberal government has made many cuts to
the grants awarded to these organizations. It must be well
understood that, according to the motion, only the obligation to
provide assistance is transferred to the organizations. Nowhere is a
transfer of money mentioned.
The very spirit of this motion is disturbing in that it is aimed at
punishing people who are exercising their rights. Indeed, if
someone decides to appeal the decision denying him refugee status,
his social assistance benefits would be withdrawn or limited. When
did our legal system start punishing people for exercising their
rights?
The Reform member's motion also goes against the universality
principle, which is fundamental to our social security system. Why
should a fundamental right be denied to a group of people, in this
case refugee claimants? Yet, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly
ruled that these people are protected by the Canadian charter of
rights.
Refugees do not choose their situation, let alone to live on social
assistance. These people are already in an extremely precarious
position. Consequently, withdrawing or limiting their only source
of income is totally unacceptable. Moreover, we see that social
assistance benefits have been reduced throughout Canada,
particularly because of Ottawa-imposed cuts in social transfers to
the provinces. If an additional reduction is made, we may ask
ourselves what tiny amount will ultimately be left. Do we want
people to die of hunger in this so-called ``best country in the
world'', as the Prime Minister likes to claim?
Refugee status determination is incumbent upon the federal
government, more specifically the immigration and refugee board,
whose management and administration leave much to be desired.
Time frames and delays in this matter are too long.
(1140)
I recently questioned the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration about this. Her answer showed very little will to act to
ensure that less time was needed to process refugee status claims.
At present, it generally takes more than a year, and often as long as
two, three, four or more years. That is unacceptable.
Since the Liberal Government was elected in 1993, the refugee
claim backlog at the IRB has risen to over 30,000, a 75 per cent
increase, and more than half of this number is in Montreal. This is
especially unacceptable since the number of claimants has
diminished these past few years. The IRB should work on stepping
up productivity and enhancing its efficiency. Board members
should be required to process a larger number of claims each year.
The 140 or so members currently process 140 claims per year on
average. That is not enough. This excessively long turnaround time
and the lack of productivity at the IRB and the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration are responsible for the skyrocketing
cost of refugee status determination.
8480
The minister should also put an end to the patronage system
used to appoint IRB members. So far, the best qualification for
getting appointed to the board was to be a member of the Liberal
Party or a defeated Liberal candidate in the last election, a
contributor to the Liberals' campaign fund or a friend of the
Liberals.
Meanwhile, many claimants require social assistance from the
provinces, which end up footing the bill for the federal
government's negligence and neglect, as well as for the
unreasonable backlog at the IRB. Citizenship and Immigration
Canada is also responsible for issuing work permits to refugee
claimants. Often, permits are denied or take forever to be issued.
The vast majority of these individuals want to work. They are
prepared to take any job that will earn them a livelihood. Only as a
last resort do they apply for social assistance benefits.
It is imperative that a fair, efficient and, more importantly,
diligent system for the processing of refugee claims be set up.
Those whose claims are legitimate should have their status
confirmed within a reasonable length of time, so as to minimize
costs and the time these people are held in limbo.
All the federal government has to do is refund the provinces the
expenses generated by the arrival of refugee claimants. Ottawa has
sole responsibility for determining the rules and outcome of the
refugee status determination process as well as for more general
issues, such as admission to Canada and the return of refugees.
Why should the provinces, including Quebec, have to pay for
providing refugee claimants with reception and support services,
including health care? I said, and I repeat, that the refugee status
determination process is a federal responsibility.
These people should have access to basic financial support when
in need, to legal assistance, temporary housing, elementary and
secondary education for children and language training, in French
in Quebec and English in the other provinces. Funding for these
programs must come from Ottawa.
For all these reasons, we are unable to support either the
principle or the letter of Motion M-126.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to put this private member's motion in context. It
does not bar the door to legitimate refugees. That is the last thing
our country should do. As a matter of fact, throughout all of the
world Canada stands as a beacon of hope to thousands and
thousands of people. That should never change.
However, putting out the welcome mat does not mean that we
have to be the doormat. That is what we are talking about.
(1145 )
Most Canadians intuitively understand the difference between
welcoming people, in particular refugees, to our shores and being a
doormat to anybody who wants to use and abuse the system. That is
what we are talking about in this bill. We are talking about sending
a message to the world, to people who would misuse our generosity
and say to them you have an opportunity to come to our shores and
apply for refugee status but if it is determined under a fair system
that you are not a genuine refugee, then you cannot use taxpayer
money indefinitely to try to work your way around the system. That
is all we are talking about here.
We are not talking about barring the doors. We are not talking
about being meanspirited. We are talking about using a little
common sense.
We need to understand that new Canadians come to our shores
through three separate doorways. One is the sponsored immigrant
status. A sponsored immigrant is usually when someone has a
relative who has come here before and sponsors them. Another is
the landed immigrant status whereby someone applies on their own
merit under the point system and is able to come to Canada because
they have the ability. We also have the category where people are
able to buy their way in. The category that we are talking about
right now is the refugee status.
Canadians should really think about how we handle refugees and
people who come to our country under the refugee status. I ask
members to think about this. By definition how is it possible for
someone to arrive on our shores from the United States, from
England or from another safe country and apply for refugee status?
Would it not make more sense if our country were to go to those
places in the world where people who are genuine refugees, who do
not have the wherewithal or the money to find their way to our
shores, and would it not make more sense for us to make the
refugee determination on site so that when people come to our
shores they do not have to have this sword dangling over their
heads of are they going to be granted landed refugee status or not?
That brings to mind the Somalis in Toronto who were invited to
our shores by our government, welcomed by our government and
then put into this limbo for all of those years where they are not
granted landed immigrant status. They are left in this limbo, where
they must utilize Canada's social safety net because they cannot
work. We cannot assume that refugees coming to our shores do not
want to work. Everybody knows that is not true. The vast majority
of people who come to our shores are just dying to contribute, just
aching to be part of our country. But if we do not allow them to
work, then they have to access our social programs.
We need to make sure that our refugee claimant process is swift,
accurate, compassionate and once a decision has been made, allow
people to get on with their lives. It is this never ending opportunity
8481
for people to appeal and appeal. Meanwhile all the time they are
doing so they are accessing the very short funds that all provinces
find that they have for social security.
One of the reasons that the provinces have a dramatic shortage of
funds for social security is, as we all know, that under the Canada
health and social transfer the transfers to the provinces have been
reduced by $7 billion by this Liberal government. Therefore the
provinces find themselves having to deal with more and more
expenses with fewer and fewer resources.
My hon. colleague from the Bloc who spoke earlier mentioned
that this motion was out of order because welfare and items of this
sort were a provincial responsibility and not the purview of the
federal government in any instance.
(1150 )
While it is true that welfare is a responsibility of the provinces,
we are in a federal state. This government will be announcing today
that the Prime Minister is on the west coast in Vancouver and that
he will make a great to-do about making a deal with the
government of B.C. for residency requirements for welfare
recipients. As long as the federal government has its oar in the
water through spending and taxing power, it has a role to play in the
purview of the provinces whether the provinces like it or not.
It is interesting to note that on every single bit of legislation that
comes before the House, members of the Bloc are very quick to
defend the honour and the jurisdiction of their province but they are
not so quick to say that they would be quite happy to pay for it
themselves. The idea is ``send us the money and let us make the
decisions on what we are going to do with it''.
There is a very genuine role for the federal government to play.
The federal government makes the determination for what the
international covenants on refugee status and claimants will be.
The federal government has a role in the transfer of resources from
the provinces to pay for social assistance and the federal
government sets the rules by which all members play. The federal
government has a very real involvement in this issue.
This is our obligation as a nation. When we open our doors to
refugee claimants, we should do so expeditiously. We should make
it possible for people to come to our country, to become landed
immigrants and eventually citizens, the vast majority of whom will
make great contributions to our country. We can see in the mosaic
that is Canada there are people of all nations from all parts of the
world who are coming together to build the democratic land that is
one of the most cherished in the world.
Our doors should always be opened to genuine refugees. But
again, we do not need to be a doormat in order to extend the
welcome mat to genuine refugees. When people who have come to
our shores as refugees have under fair and impartial hearings been
determined not to fit the refugee classification, then it makes sense
to me and to thousands of other Canadians that the taxpayer not be
obligated to foot the bill indefinitely. That is what we are talking
about here. It is not meanspirited; it is merely common sense.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 126
as proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. This
motion advocates that the federal and provincial governments
co-operate in order to limit the social assistance available to failed
refugee claimants who are remaining in Canada to make appeals to
the courts and to transfer the onus of providing further assistance to
these individuals to immigrant and refugee aid societies and other
organizations.
I understand the hon. member's concerns regarding the strains
our social assistance programs are under. In this time of fiscal
austerity and deficit reduction it is important to find ways to
maintain the institutions which are truly important to our society.
In many respects our social welfare system shows that
Canadians care about offering a helping hand to those in need. This
commitment is also evident in the way we treat refugees and
refugee claimants. For decades Canada has opened is arms to
people who have fled from terror and repression around the world.
As Canadians we have an obligation to not look away.
(1155)
As signatories of the Geneva convention on refugees we pledged
to do our part as good international citizens. This is a responsibility
I am proud to say we continue and we shall continue to meet.
We must be vigilant and not tinker with our refugee system in a
needless or careless fashion. To suggest that we should take
punitive measures against individuals who are not found to be
convention refugees is a little misguided. I agree with the hon.
member that we should not tolerate people who would abuse our
system, but acting rashly or in a draconian manner is not the way to
deal with that problem. There are people who do not fit the strict
definition of a refugee but who are nonetheless in need of our
assistance.
I think the hon. member is ignoring this group. He is simply
implying that all failed refugee claimants are somehow charlatans
or criminals seeking to capitalize on our generosity. This simply is
not the case. There are some people who do not fit the strict
convention refugee definition but who still deserve to have their
cases examined as a humanitarian consideration. It would be
distinctly un-Canadian to punish these people who have already
experienced great suffering.
8482
The definition of a convention refugee is very specific. Some
individuals may find themselves in a refugee like situation but will
still not qualify to be protected as refugees. As a compassionate
country we should keep an eye open for these special cases. While
it is important that the refugee determination process be governed
by strict rules, it is equally necessary to have some flexibility and
room for compassion. I am glad to say that our system allows us
this latitude.
We have some mechanisms in place which help ensure that
failed refugee claimants who are in genuine trouble do not slip
through the cracks. There are instances in which a person, though
not technically a refugee, may face torture or violence if they go
home. We have a moral obligation to see that does not happen.
Moreover, there is also the potential for humanitarian and
compassionate review of a claimant's application should the
claimant feel that their case merits special attention due to
extenuating circumstances. We should continue to be vigilant about
finding and removing people who do not merit our humanitarian
consideration. We should not let people linger in the system for
long periods of time.
The key is not to punish people for using the system. Instead we
need to ensure that the system works effectively and can process
refugee claimants rapidly. Yes, there will always be those creative
minds who create ways to financially benefit from any rule and
regulation established by any level of government. We recognize
that.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has recently
proposed changes that will protect the integrity of the system while
at the same time speeding up the rate at which claims are
processed. Bill C-49, for instance, proposes to reduce refugee
division panels from two members to one. This will allow the IRB
to schedule hearings more quickly and will permit it to render
faster decisions.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently
introduced proposed regulatory changes intended to streamline the
risk assessment process for failed refugee claimants. Currently risk
assessments are automatically made to ensure that failed refugee
claimants will not be at risk if they return to their home country.
Often this assessment is nothing more than a time consuming
formality at great expense which is not even requested by the
client. We have changed that and under the proposed changes the
risk review will no longer be automatic. Instead failed refugee
claimants will have to apply. This does not change our
humanitarian commitment to people who are genuinely in need.
This will simply ensure that appropriate risk reviews are done
quickly and efficiently.
(1200 )
These changes will exclude certain groups such as those
convicted of serious criminal offences. This will allow the
government
to continue helping legitimate refugees and removing people who
do not need or deserve our protection.
We must be vigilant to ensure that individuals who are found not
to be convention refugees are treated fairly and with compassion.
We have programs that do just that. We must continually look for
positive ways to improve the good system we already have.
However, the motion before the House simply does not offer a
constructive or workable solution. It fails to balance compassion
with common sense. It fails to strike that fair and just balance
which is a hallmark of our refugee determination system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8482
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-66, an act to
amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and
Labour Union Returns Act and to make consequential amendments
to other Acts, as reported with amendments from a committee.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to
withdraw Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 10 put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): What numbers?
Mr. Ménard: Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 10.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Do we have the
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 10 withdrawn.)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There are 54 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill
C-66, less the ones just withdrawn by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. The motions will be grouped for debate
as follows:
Group No. 1: Motion No. 1.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 45, 49, 50 and 54.
8483
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 11, 12, 41 and 51.
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 36.
[English]
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 33 to 35, 39 and 44.
[Translation]
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 24, 25, 28 to 30 and 32.
[English]
Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 26, 31 and 42.
[Translation]
Group No. 9: Motions Nos. 25, 35, 38, 40 and 43.
Group No. 10: Motions Nos. 46 to 48, 52 and 53.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following new
Clause:
``0.1 The definition of ``federal work, undertaking or business'' in section 2 of the
Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (j):
but not including any flour mill or other undertaking for the milling of grain;''
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be a
disposition in the House to facilitate the efficiency of debate by
agreeing that the motions be deemed read and seconded as we go to
each and every one of the groupings, as you have already clarified.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
suggestion of the chief government whip. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you realize that the official opposition is very pleased to
address a bill that has taken a lot of our time, but deservedly so, as
it is an important bill. The idea is to establish a balance in our
society, since Bill C-66 deals with the whole issue of labour
relations.
The amendment that we propose, and which we believe will get
the government's support, is based on common sense.
(1205)
If we were to ask parliamentarians why, in 1997, flour mills still
come under federal jurisdiction, we would probably have a hard
time getting a rational explanation.
This amendment was suggested to us by a witness who is very
knowledgable and very concerned about the situation of flour
mills. I am referring of course to Ogilvie Mills Ltd., which is
unionized under the CSN. I want to make things very clear and say
that, with this amendment, we are proposing that flour mills be
deemed to come under provincial jurisdiction. In this regard, I
would like to quote a short excerpt from a submission which is very
forceful, like anything done by the CSN, and which explains why
we should, as parliamentarians, as opposition and government
members, accept such an argument.
I am quoting workers from Ogilvie Mills, who made the
following statement before the parliamentary committee: ``Most
people who get involved in our labour relations for the first time
are surprised to find out that mill workers come under the Canada
Labour Code. As for us, after having been unionized for over 30
years, we are still wondering about this situation''.
They do have a point. Why is that? It is because, before modern
laws governing labour relations come into effect, the federal
government used its declaratory power. We know this is not a rare
occurrence. Indeed, in the past, the federal government used its
declaratory power a number of times to appropriate jurisdictions,
which it claimed to be of national interest. So, the federal
government used its declaratory power to rule that flour mills came
under its jurisdiction. ``Such an initiative may have been justified
in an era of world conflicts and protectionism'', said the witness,
``but not today. Especially since the Americans have gained control
over most of this production, especially since the Crow's Nest rate
was abolished and since it is easier to move wheat over the U.S.
border''.
The argument no longer holds; just like beer production-can a
more eloquent example be ever found?-flour production should
fall under provincial jurisdiction. Then, the witness added
something that ought to make the government happy, by saying:
``No difficult constitutional amendments would be needed; the
federal government only has to modify the Labour Code or its
wheat legislation to remove any reference to flour mills''.
That is exactly what our amendment proposes, and I hope that
the parliamentary secretary would nod to show us that he intends to
accept our reasoning. I still want to use the time I have left to
remind the House how important this amendment is and that we
owe it to the Ogilvie employees. These workers, as you know, were
involved in an extremely long labour dispute, which brings me to
the connection I want to make between the two issues.
8484
These Ogilvie employees were the ones who really made us
aware of the need to have extremely clear and unequivocal
provisions within the Labour Code concerning replacement
workers, as my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, could
confirm. These workers were on strike for quite a while and some
violent incidents occurred, which were directly related to the lack
of protection and the banning of replacement workers.
There is no longer any argument, any reason for the mill workers
to still be subject to the Canada Labour Code. As parliamentarians,
we could very easily pass this amendment, insert it in Bill C-66 and
ensure that the flour mills fall under provincial jurisdiction. I think
that would make things easier for everyone involved.
(1210)
It must be pointed out that we do not suggest it is irrelevant to
afford some protection to a number of workers in the air
transportation industry, in banking and in other sectors under
federal jurisdiction. Besides, we all know that the Canada Labour
Code applies to 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce only.
We agree that when the federal government position is based on
clear and explicit jurisdictions, and when the intent of the 33
Fathers of Confederation is clear, there should be a clear
protection. But in the case of the flour mills, I think we should
accept the request of workers and pass our amendment to the effect
that they should be under provincial jurisdiction.
This is the intent of our amendment, and I am confident that the
parliamentary secretary to the labour minister will accept our
arguments. If not, I certainly hope he will take the floor and explain
why. He tends to keep nodding, but you know that silence gives
consent.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
have liked the member opposite to stand up and tell us if he agrees
with our amendment or, if not, at least why he does not.
This revision of the Labour Code should lead to its
modernization. A minimum condition of modernization should be
to abolish this clause, whereby the federal government at one time
used its declaratory power to bring flour mills under federal
jurisdiction. That was understandable druing the second world war,
but it is not any more. My colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
quoted and read eloquently testimony given by the Ogilvie
workers.
It has to be stated forcefully that this strike, which has weakened
the union and even the Quebec position in the milling industry,
would certainly not have lasted as long and a settlement would
have been reached sooner if Quebec laws had applied.
I am thinking more specifically about the antiscab clause. This
clause was included in the Quebec Labour Code in 1977 by the
then Minister of Labour, Pierre-Marc Johnson, and was maintained
by the Bourassa Liberal government that took power in 1985.
Mr. Bourassa himself, who had been subjected to very intense
pressures from management earlier in the year, told these people
that social peace was a very precious thing in Quebec and that he
would not change the labour code. The antiscab provision allows
for a more rapid settlement of labour disputes. It creates a power
relationship that forces both parties to come to an agreement more
rapidly instead of letting the situation deteriorate. Without this
protection, unions often have to resort to other means that appear to
be the only ones available to defend their fundamental right to
organize and to protect the work and working conditions of their
members.
This is one of the provisions that would give this union and flour
mills an opportunity to benefit from a faster settlement of disputes.
(1215)
I said that the minister wanted to modernize the legislation. If
that is what he wants to do, then he should make his legislation as
consistent as possible. In this context, flour mills seem really out of
place because they do not meet any of the criteria under which the
Privy Council decided, in 1927, that some businesses in Canada
should come under federal jurisdiction while the rest should come
under provincial jurisdiction. I remind you that, in this regard, it
went against the Supreme Court, which had a tendency to say that
the Canadian government should look after all labour relations
matters.
Therefore, it seems to me that the declaratory power the federal
government is using is inspired more by this centralizing tendency
than by the need to be consistent in determining which unions must
come under federal jurisdiction and which unions must come under
provincial jurisdiction, in this case, under Quebec's jurisdiction.
There are other provisions which union members cannot benefit
from. For example, pregnant women cannot benefit from the
precautionary cessation of work provision. We could go on this
way to show that there is no reason why a business located in
Quebec cannot benefit from the same labour code as the rest. There
is absolutely no reason for that.
That is why we want the government to correct this anomaly
which should not exist in this day and age and which caused a
labour dispute that lasted a long time, that went sour and that gave
labour relations a bad name, all because of the previous version of
the Canada Labour Code. We can say right away that it will be even
worse with the new version if it is adopted in its present form.
8485
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
resume deliberations on Bill C-66, an act to amend Part I of the
Canada Labour Code, it is relevant to look back at the purpose of
the bill, as stated by the minister. He said at the outset that he
wanted to seek a balance. That was the direction he was going to
take. It is now obvious that there are many differing opinions on
what constitutes a balance.
In today's fast paced business climate neither employers nor
employees can afford prolonged disputes that distract from their
real goals. Workers want job stability, job satisfaction and
reasonable compensation for their efforts. Employers want a
competent, reliable and productive workforce. Both sides look to
us as parliamentarians to give them the tools to settle
disagreements in an expeditious, cost effective manner.
The first and only motion in Group No. 1, standing in the name
of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, proposes to
remove flour mills and other undertakings related to the milling of
grain from federal jurisdiction. Aside from his party's quest to
remove all aspects of Quebec life from federal jurisdiction, I am
sure the hon. member submitted the amendment because of the 15
month work disruption at the Montreal location of ADM
Agri-Industries Ltd., otherwise known as the Ogilvie flour mills.
The collective agreement between the workers and the original
owner, John Labatt Ltd., expired January 1992. When the mill was
sold to the U.S. owner, Archer-Daniels-Midland, in June 1992, a
new collective agreement had not been signed. The strike, which
began on June 6, 1994 lasted until September 1995. That was a long
15 months for everyone concerned.
(1220)
Members on all sides of the House are concerned when
prolonged strikes or lockouts occur in their ridings. We in the
Reform Party are concerned about impacts that strikes or lockouts
have on workers, employers and Canadians who most often have to
bear the brunt of the costs of inconveniences when services of
monopolistic industries are withdrawn.
Hon. members will know that my Reform colleagues and I have
long been concerned over the effects of work stoppages in the west
coast ports where grain shipments are concerned.
In the first session of Parliament my colleague, the hon. member
for Lethbridge, sponsored a private member's bill that if passed
would have provided a dispute settlement mechanism to all parties
involved in the grain transportation and grain handling sectors. Of
course, I am referring to final offer selection arbitration.
When the problems of Ogilvie flour mills were debated in the
House in May 1995, I suggested that the matter could have been
resolved quickly in the Canada Labour Code contained this
provision. The previous speaker talked about the union breaking
tactics. If we had given both union and management those tools of
final offer selection arbitration at that time the 15 months of
heartache would not have been endured.
We see final offer selection arbitration as a tool that is useful to
both labour and management. When all efforts to solve disputes
through the regular collective bargaining process have been
exhausted, final offer selection arbitration should be available to
the parties.
Final offer arbitration is the most effective and impartial means
of obtaining a solution to the concerns of labour and management
where an impasse occurs that inflicts significant damage on
Canadians and on the Canadian economy. It requires both parties to
negotiate in good faith while keeping in mind their overall interest
as an organization. It does not prevent either side from achieving a
deal provided they are being fair and open with one another. In fact,
there is tremendous pressure on both sides to reach an agreement
because the arbitrator is in a position to adopt either side's
proposal.
In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as
employment security, an agreement may never occur through
collective bargaining and a strike or lockout may only make
matters worse.
The best solution is for someone respected by both sides to make
a decision on the fairness of one proposal for the process to be
viewed as legitimate to both sides.
The answer is to give employees and employers the mechanism
to resolve their problems without the pressures of strike, lockouts
or back to work legislation. Oftentimes back to work legislation
includes final offer selection arbitration.
For those reasons I propose amendments to this bill which we
will debate in Group No. 8. I am sure the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will recognize that if final offer
arbitration had been available to the workers at Ogilvie mills,
months of hardship could have been avoided.
The answer is not just to turn grain related matters over to the
provinces, as the hon. member suggests, but to offer them means to
solve their problems. The member through his amendment is
mistaken if he thinks the amendment to the Canada Labour Code
would automatically exempt flour mills and other milling
operations from the Canada Labour Code. He seems to have
forgotten that flour mills and grain elevators have been governed
by federal law since World War II when they were considered to be
in the national interest and in fact are protected by the Constitution
and the Canada Grain Act. No doubt he has just forgotten. I am sure
he would not want to initiate another round of constitutional talks.
Obviously he cannot be serious about this amendment.
8486
(1225)
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I address the motion put
forward by the official opposition in Group No. 1, I will say a few
words about the purpose of Bill C-66 and about the consultation
process that preceded its introduction.
Bill C-66 is the result of extensive consultations with
representatives of labour and management and other interested
parties in the context of a review of Part I of the Canada Labour
Code which began over two years ago. An independent task force
of industrial relations experts was established to review the current
code and to recommend legislative changes.
Following the release of the task force report entitled ``Seeking a
Balance'' in February 1996, the Minister of Labour held
cross-country consultations. These extensive consultations have
resulted in a bill that is fair and balanced. Its provisions reflect the
labour and management support for a legislative framework that
allows them to develop their own solutions to industrial relations
problems without the need for government intervention or imposed
third party solutions.
There is a clear relationship between a positive labour relations
environment and a productive viable economy. A stable positive
labour relations climate is essential if Canada is to meet the
competitive challenges of the new global economy. Collective
bargaining legislation should encourage and facilitate co-operative
labour-management relationships and the adoption of innovative
workplace practices. We believe Bill C-66 succeeds in meeting
these goals.
With respect to Motion No. 1, the official opposition is seeking
to exclude flour mills or other undertakings for the milling of grain
from the application of the Canada Labour Code. As the hon.
member who has proposed this amendment is aware, the grain
industry has been declared by Parliament to be, as my colleague
from Wetaskiwin said, for the general advantage of Canada. As
such, the industry lies within the federal jurisdiction.
I understand there are two declarations by Parliament that affect
the grain industry in Canada. One is found in the Canada Grain Act
which establishes the Canadian Grain Commission, and the other is
found in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The designation of flour
mills as works for the general advantage of Canada is found in the
Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Industries declared to be for the general advantage of
Canada-uranium mining and processing is another one such
industry-are subject to federal labour jurisdiction even if they are
situated wholly within one province. Section 2(h) of the Canada
Labour Code confirms this jurisdictional fact.
I believe the hon. member had a specific undertaking and a
single province in mind when he proposed this amendment.
However, the grain industry and its related activities extend across
this vast country and touch every region. The amendment would
cover all three parts of the code: minimum standards in safety and
health, the labour relations provisions dealt with, and the part we
are addressing today.
To exclude the grain industry from the application of the code at
the stroke of a pen, as is proposed, would create chaos and is not
acceptable. Furthermore, removing the industry from the
application of the code would not remove it from federal
jurisdiction. The declarations in the two statutes I cited previously
would remain.
Declarations for the general advantage of Canada cannot be
partial. Consequently, the amendment would create a vacuum with
no labour legislation legally applying to the industry. I am sure that
is not what the hon. member intends. In short, I cannot support this
proposed amendment.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 1 in Group No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
I therefore declare the motion negatived.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
(1230)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
debate motions in Group No. 2 which includes Motions Nos. 2 and
3.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 1 the following new
Clause:
``1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 4:
8487
4.1 (1) This Part applies in respect of the Professional Institute of the Public Service,
its members and the employers of those members.
(2) The Minister shall, not later than six months after the coming into force of this
section, by regulation, amend or repeal those provisions in any Act of Parliament
whose amendment or repeal are necessary to the effective application of Part I to the
Professional Institute of the Public Service, its members and the employers of those
members.''
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 1 the following new
Clause:
``1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 4:
4.1 (1) This Part applies in respect of the Public Service Alliance, its members and
the employers of those members.
(2) The Minister shall, not later than six months after the coming into force of this
section, by regulation, amend or repeal those provisions in any Act of Parliament
whose amendment or repeal are necessary to the effective application of Part I to the
Public Service Alliance, its members and the employers of those members.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, you have before you a man who is
surprised, to say the least, to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour rising in this House to make the barefaced
statement that national chaos will result if the federal government
adopts this amendment. I think that the parliamentary secretary has
both erred a little, and overdone it a little, since he himself ended
up with flour on his face when the amendment by the official
opposition was under discussion.
This does, however, give us some idea of where we stand. You
will agree that, if the government does not even have the little
courage required to put flour mills under provincial jurisdiction,
we will not be able to reach agreement. It must be agreed that the
government will be acting in an authoritarian, even despotic,
manner, by adopting such a hard line.
With this second group of amendments, we will attempt to get
the parliamentary secretary out from under the flour in which he
has buried himself, and to get him to understand another level of
rationality.
What we are proposing with these amendments is what was
asked of us in committee by the representatives of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the
Public Service when they met with us. Both unions asked, in a
completely rational manner and as mandated by their rank and file,
to come under the Canada Labour Code, Part I, and not the Public
Service Staff Relations Act as they do at present.
I trust that the government will broaden its horizons a little, be a
little bolder, and have the courage to acquiesce to this demand.
Why did the two unions in question ask to be brought under Part I
of the Canada Labour Code? Because they felt this would give
them greater leeway in their negotiations, and particularly because
they felt that a number of their key priorities relating to the quality
of everyday life in the workplace could be negotiated immediately.
As we know, under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the
process is somewhat unwieldy, because Treasury Board is
involved. Things are not always easy, nor is there much flexibility,
yet extremely important elements are at stake.
So if the government went along with this amendment, which
was inspired by nothing else than common sense, public service
employees represented by those two unions would be able to
bargain directly on the following points: job security, which is not
an easy matter to negotiate, as I think the hon. member for
Terrebonne will agree, and protection against technological
change.
As you know, we have been an enlightened and very advanced
opposition. We have tabled a series of amendments-and we will
get back to them in due course-that would ensure that no major
technological changes are introduced in a company or the public
service without the employees having their say. This will be the
challenge of the years to come, and there will be further debate on
this.
Both PIPS and PSAC have asked to be covered by the Canada
Labour Code, and this demand goes back several years. They want
this first of all because they feel they will be in a far better position
and have more leeway when negotiating job security, protection
against technological change and also a third element that is
crucially important, and I am referring to position classifications
and task definitions. A fourth group of concerns includes
appointments, promotions and transfers, which could conviently
come under the heading career plan.
(1235)
In committee it was pointed out that there were two major
advantages to accepting such a demand. The Canada Labour Code
allows unions to negotiate their members' working conditions
more directly. There is no limitation in the code on the rights of
employees, such as the right to strike or to refer all grievances to a
third, impartial, party.
These are very important considerations, and I hope the
parliamentary secretary will take a more vigorous and bolder
approach, as opposed to the almost die hard conservativism he has
shown so far.
In concluding, since I believe my time is running out, I may
remind you of another of our concerns about this so-called
modernization, since when the minister spoke in committee and in
the House about undertaking a review of the Canada Labour Code,
Part I, he told us it was to modernize labour relations, and of course
we all agree that labour relations are quite different today from
what they were in the seventies.
8488
We tried to deal with this and, personally, as the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and labour relations critic, I tabled a
motion in the House asking the government to give the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police the right to collective bargaining. The
connection with the public service as a whole is extremely
tenuous, since the RCMP has the status of sole employer as far
as Treasury Board is concerned. Imagine my reaction, imagine my
consternation when I discovered that the government, totally
unreasonably and obsessively to some extent I would say, rejected
such a motion.
Is it appropriate that the RCMP should be the only police force in
Canada without the right to collective bargaining? I was very
pleased by what I read in Hansard. It says there that the third party
in the House, the Reform Party, gave its approval, as expressed by
one of its members. I think the member for Calgary rose to say he
recognized the situation as discriminatory.
We must recall that the RCMP is not claiming the right to strike.
They are asking for the right to negotiate their working conditions,
as all police forces do across Canada, with outside arbitration.
There are those, who are a bit muddled, who say that they already
have arbitration. In fact, this is the subject of the entire rather weak
speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General,
who rose in this House to say that an internal negotiation system
known as divisional representation already existed.
Obviously, for those who are looking in from the outside and for
those who know a little about labour relations, it is like a sort of
small shop union, which does not provide a solid base for
collectively negotiating working conditions.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will rise to explain the reason
for the fear. If the Labour Code is useful in providing a balance in
labour relations, as the minister says, why not include the
employees of the public service who want to be included and who
have given their union representatives a mandate. I am thinking of
course of the Professional Institute, the Alliance and the
spokespersons of the RCMP. We are not talking about speculation
or guessing, these are duly authorized union spokespersons, people
who have mandates.
(1240)
They came to see us in committee, and explained that, as regards
the five indicators I mentioned concerning job security, protection
against technological change, position classification and career
advancement, ``We think it would be more beneficial for our
members, and this is a motivating factor: it is significant for an
employer to be covered by part I of the Canada Labour Code''.
I hope that, in all lucidity, the minister and the parliamentary
secretary will rise in the House, thank the opposition for the acuity
of its remarks and support the amendments before the House today.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the comments of my colleague from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. He tried to put the case that somehow
the RCMP is at a terrible disadvantage because we do not allow its
members to join a union.
One very important fact has escaped my colleague. By no means
does the majority of members of that force want the option of
joining a union. That has been made very clear in the House several
times. Perhaps those were days when my friend should have been
paying attention and was not.
Had he paid attention I am sure he would have picked up on that
fact. It has been brought to the House several times by me and by
my colleague from Calgary. It is a well known fact. I have had
several representations from members of the RCMP in my
constituency and elsewhere who say that the divisional
representative situation is working just fine for them.
I also find it interesting that my colleague would like to pick and
choose. He would like to say that the flour mill workers, for
instance, should be taken out of federal jurisdiction and another
group of people should be moved into federal jurisdiction. The
more legislation we create in this place, the more need there is for
legislation.
If we come up with a plan whereby members of the RCMP could
join a union, what good will the union do? Will it give them the
right to strike, or will they immediately be declared an essential
service? If so, what has been gained? We would have passed two
pieces of legislation, one really nullifying the other.
I do not want to belabour the point so I will not take up the full
10 minutes to make my point.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take part in the debate on Motion No. 2 regarding Bill C-66, and
in particular on RCMP members' right to unionization and to
collective bargaining.
I have, on a number of occasions, taken part in the debate and
asked that the Canada Labour Code be amended in order to allow
RCMP members to unionize, like any other federal public servants,
and like any other police force in Canada. Members of these police
forces have the right to unionize. Why deny members of the RCMP
this legitimate right?
The International Labour Organization gives all wage earners
without exception the right to unionize. But in Canada, a country
espousing the principles of the ILO, a police force that is very
important to the country is denied this right.
8489
(1245)
I think that labour relations at the RCMP would benefit from
collective bargaining, discussion of working conditions by the
parties, and a collective agreement. I think that there would be
advantages to RCMP management and members alike. I am in
favour of the RCMP's right to unionization and collective
bargaining.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has submitted
two related motions to make part I of the Canada Labour Code
applicable to the Professional Institute of the Public Service, its
members and the employers of those members, and the Public
Service Alliance of Canada, its members and the employers of
those members.
At the outset let me say that we have some difficulty
understanding the purpose of the motions. It would appear that the
purpose is to repeal the Public Service Staff Relations Act or, at the
very least, significantly reduce the numbers of federal public
service employees subject to the act. If that is the case-and let me
say that such a proposal is unacceptable to the government-in
essence these motions would bring 80 per cent of the public
servants currently covered by the Public Service Staff Relations
Act under part I of the code, leaving 20 per cent of the public
service represented by the 14 other unions under the public service
collective bargaining regime.
Quite frankly we fail to see the rationale behind these motions
which would effectively split public servants into two groups: one
covered by the private sector labour relations regime and the other
covered by the public sector labour relations regime. The basis for
such distinction escapes us.
While the task force established to review part I of the code did
not address the issue of applying this statute to the federal public
sector, it did note the potential for achieving benefits by
consolidating the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the
Canada Labour Relations Board. Although a merger of these two
tribunals is not being proposed at this time, value and efficiencies
could be realized in an administrative consolidation of the private
and public sector boards.
Among the benefits that could be achieved through such
rationalization we could easily identify cost savings for the boards,
savings to the parties who would benefit from a single source, and
harmonization of procedures which would eliminate unnecessary
diversity in dealing with essentially similar topics and broader
based coverage.
Although collective bargaining in the private sector and in the
public sector have much in common, there are important
distinctions which would require careful consideration before any
decision to harmonize the two regimes is made.
In the private sector labour legislation is designed to regulate the
relationship between private parties with economic power being
the main disciplining mechanism. In the public sector the
legislation is largely designed to take into account the
government's role in protecting the public interest. Such
fundamental differences have resulted in the application of
separate labour relations regimes to govern employees in most
Canadian jurisdictions.
The public service has been through some significant changes in
the past 10 years as many of its activities have been removed to
new forms of agencies outside the traditional public service or have
been simply transferred to private or crown corporations. In those
two last situations the collective bargaining of employees affected
by such transfers is currently being governed by part I of the code.
Some would argue that these changes in the nature of the public
service are the most persuasive reasons for revisiting the rationale
for the creation and maintenance of the two separate legislative
regimes. However we have to be careful before rushing into
harmonization. Such an exercise would require extensive
consultations of all the interested parties.
The minister has already expressed his intention to pursue
further the analysis of the amalgamation and harmonization
concepts with interested colleagues and parties.
For the reasons just outlined we ask the members of the House to
reject both Motions Nos. 2 and 3 as they raise complex issues that
were obviously overlooked by the official opposition and would
require further study.
(1250)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am always
pleased to speak on motions such as the ones at report stage of Bill
C-66. The motions were hopefully introduced to improve the bill,
but from our perspective we do not see much being improved by
the motions in front of us at the moment.
One of the things I would like to talk about this morning is the
concept of contracts with unions should the government divest
itself of a department, for example air navigation which will be
taken from the government and put into a not for profit
organization called Nav Can.
I have a problem with the contract with employees in situations
such as these flowing through to the new employer, not just Nav
Can but all situations. We are trying to achieve flexibility in
management-labour negotiations and responsibilities. If we take
the contract that exists today between the government and its
8490
employees we find it is fossilized, if I may use that term. It needs
to be brought up to date with modern management techniques.
By entrenching in other sectors such as Nav Can and perhaps the
new agricultural food inspection agency, the contract that exists
today between the government and public servants guarantees the
problems inherent in the contract will remain inherent in the
relationship in the new organization. It will prevent the
organization from evolving and improving its management
efficiency.
We must move to the concept of merit being one of the major
criteria by which we evaluate the compensation package we
provide to employees. As we open negotiations with the federal
public service and government I hope the government recognizes
the need for merit, the need to compensate people according to
their production and contribution and not according to age or
number of years of experience regardless of whether or not they are
productive.
The type of motion would continue to entrench the one salary
pays everybody, one shoe fits all employees. That cannot be
tolerated much longer in the new competitive world we are
entering into.
I attended a conference last September in Victoria of people
from around the world, for example the auditor general of the
United Kingdom and people from the United States, Australia,
New Zealand and other parts of the world. We were discussing
accountability in government. It became quite apparent that
Canada lags way behind the United Kingdom when it comes to
being visionary in the way it will improve the efficiency of
government in the years ahead.
The United Kingdom realizes that the role of government
primarily is to develop public policy. The implementation of public
policy can quite easily be handled by other institutions such as not
for profit institutions, competitive institutions and private sector
institutions, so the role of government is reduced to its real
function of development of public policy.
As the delivery of public services have been spun off into
competitive environments, it recognizes the need to protect the
current employee and therefore says that the currently existing
contract shall flow through to protect current employees in the new
institution they are working for. In Canada it could be Nav Can.
(1255)
The organization by which they are employed has the
opportunity to set new terms, new employment conditions and new
wage rates for newly hired employees. This is a wonderful way to
reach a compromise. It ensures that current employees are
protected and are slowly introduced to a competitive environment,
giving the competitive institution providing the service the
flexibility to deal with its employees in a much more enlightened
environment, and giving them the opportunity to introduce the
concept of merit that those who work hard get more and those who
work less get less.
That is how the private sector is changing. That is why when so
many businesses downsize the employees who lose their jobs
create new little home based businesses or perhaps larger
businesses. Through their flexible working conditions they are able
to thrive and prosper in a flexible environment that allows them to
make profit, compared with the monolithic dinosaur for which they
were working before.
These motions are regressive. They prevent the
worker-management relationship from evolving into a much more
competitive and dynamic relationship. Opportunities to improve
the working environment, to recognize the efficient and hard
working employee and to compensate people who deserve the best
compensation are being denied through these motions.
That is why the Reform Party is opposed to the motions we are
dealing with in group No. 2. The rationale I have found in my
experience is that we need to give flexibility, opportunity,
motivation and desire to every worker so they do the best they can.
When they are locked into one contract that fits all they lose
motivation. They find they cannot break through and be the best
they can be.
I hope the government, not only in Bill C-66 but in its
relationship with its employees, will recognize the need for new
enlightened management-labour relationships is long overdue.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
8491
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[English]
In group No. 3, in accordance with the motion adopted earlier,
the motions are deemed moved, seconded and read.
(1300)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-66, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 5
with the following:
``any fees, that may be fixed by the Governor in Council pursuant to the
recommendation made by the committee of the House of Commons referred to in
subsection (1.1).
(1.1) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider matters respecting the development of human resources shall, for the
purposes of subsection (1), recommend the fees to be fixed by the Governor in
Council under that subsection. ''
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-66, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 5 the
following:
``(3) Where a part-time member is paid travel and living expenses by virtue of
subsection (2), and those expenses are incurred in the course of carrying out duties
and responsibilities under this Act in respect of a dispute heard or determined by the
Board, the parties to the dispute shall reimburse Her Majesty in right of Canada in
equal parts for the money paid to the part-time member for those expenses and that
money, until paid, constitutes a debt recoverable by action in any court of competent
jurisdiction as a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada.''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-66, in Clause 2, be amended by
(a) replacing line 6 on page 8 with the following:
``13. (1) The head office of the Board must be in''
(b) replacing line 9 on page 8 with the following:
``the Board may establish, with the approval of the committee of the House of
Commons referred to in subsection (2), any other offices''
(c) adding after line 12 on page 8 the following:
``(2) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider matters respecting the development of human resources shall, for the
purposes of subsection (1), either approve or reject the establishment of any other
offices of the Board under that subsection.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-66, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 15
with the following:
``the Board may revoke the appointment''
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-66, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 36 with the
following:
``controlled by their employer, who have consented to the release of that
information, and authorize the''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-66, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 7 on page 41
with the following:
``shall present the report to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on
Human Resource Development at the first meeting of the committee following the
completion of the report.''
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-66, in Clause 93, be amended by adding after line 45 on page 46 the
following:
``(3) Any amount appropriated for the fiscal year that includes the
commencement day, by an appropriation Act based on the Estimates for that year for
defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of Canada for the former
Board and that, on the commencement day, is unexpended is deemed, on that day, to
be an amount appropriated for defraying the charges and expenses of the new
Board.''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all along we have noticed the government's lack of
co-operation on amendments dictated by common sense.
We are speaking on behalf of the witnesses who testified before
us. They told us that in general this bill contained interesting
things. We never pushed partisan politics to the point of saying that
this piece of legislation was altogether bad; however, we believe it
does not go far enough, it could have contained what we already
8492
have in Quebec, very clear provisions dealing with unfair practices
regarding replacement workers.
We would have liked this bill to be more explicit with regard to
technological change and board membership.
Why not have made sure the wording was clear? As a lawyer,
Mr. Speaker, and a brilliant one at that, you know how important it
is for a piece of legislation to contain provisions which are very
clear, which cannot give rise to ambiguous interpretation on the
part of tribunals, either administrative tribunals or ordinary courts
of law, and we would have liked the way members are appointed,
not so much how they are appointed as whom they represent, to be
extremely clear.
We would have liked to be able to proceed from lists submitted
by both management and labour, along the lines of what we had
suggested during consideration of Bill C-64, which established the
Human Rights Tribunal and reviewed the Employment Equity Act.
We had asked for lists which could have been used by the
government.
You will understand that the minute it becomes clear, the minute
it requires a commitment, the government tries to evade the issue.
All the amendments in the third group follow the same logic: We
say that it is true that, in the whole issue of labour relations, we
should, as legislators, seek some balance between the rights and
obligations of the employer on the one hand, and the rights and
obligations of the unions on the other hand, keeping in mind that in
our society we recognize the right to strike, as the ultimate pressure
tactic, but according to very clear guidelines.
What we were trying to do, regarding the board and some
governance issues like the creation of new tribunals, as allowed by
Bill C-64, regarding compensation for their full or part time
members, regarding travel and entertainment expenses, was give
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development the
power to examine all the questions relating to the Canada Labour
Code, so that it could study the whole matter and hold hearings.
I think this is a very healthy reflex we have always had since
becoming the official opposition in this House, to make sure that
the committees are involved in making decisions on a number of
questions.
Never did we think an amendment like this one could obstruct
the work of the Canada Labour Relations Board and the various
tribunals that will be created; never did we intend or think, even in
the boldest of our amendments, that this could be a stalling tactic
preventing us from having a diligent board and a speedy process.
(1305)
Let me give you an example. During the clause by clause
consideration of the bill, I was with the hon. member for Mercier,
who has 20 or so years of experience in the field of labour relations.
Not many parliamentarians in this House can match that.
I would like to remind you that, when, as the official opposition,
we were presented with a provision which we really felt would
enable the Canada industrial relations board, formerly the Canada
Labour Relations Board, to operate much faster and much more
efficiently, we gave it our unconditional support-as the minutes
will testify-because, when the clause by clause study of Bill C-66
first began, we as parliamentarians realized that there were a
number of concerns about the board.
Some stakeholders, labour in particular, felt the internal
workings of the board itself were cumbersome. We welcomed with
great pleasure and enthusiasm the preliminary hearings on
disclosure of evidence. I sense a certain reaction from you, Mr.
Speaker, because you are very concerned about anything that
relates to the law. We are very pleased by the fact that the board can
sit with only one person. Obviously, when there is only one person
involved, the issues discussed are very specific.
Therefore, anything that helps streamline the process will get the
unequivocal support of the official opposition. For the sake of the
board's legitimacy, integrity and effectiveness, it would be a good
thing if, as regards the issue of travel and living expenses-and the
makeup of a panel when deemed appropriate by the chairperson,
since it is a prerogative of the chairperson to convene such a panel
and to direct its composition according to very specific
instructions-the human resources development committee could
take part in the process.
The parliamentary secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but it
seems to me that, during the last election campaign, government
members, that is the Liberals, said they hoped that House
committees would play a greater role, that parliamentary
committees would be much more closely involved in the
decision-making process than they currently are.
This is precisely the underlying philosophy behind the
amendments now before the House. Is democracy not something
that is very healthy? Is it not reassuring for those who are watching
us to know that the official opposition hopes that House
committees, which are made up of duly elected members of
Parliament, can be involved in a number of decisions that are
important to the governance of this country? This is what we are
talking about.
Again, on a number of occasions, we have been very supportive
of any clause in the bill that streamlines the process, so as to
alleviate the backlog of cases before the Canada Labour Relations
Board.
I simply cannot imagine the government rejecting these
amendments, since they are directly inspired by the Liberal Party's
philosophy, as stated in the red book.
8493
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to speak on the motions in Group No. 3, which includes several
motions, following the speech made by my hon. colleague from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
(1310)
First of all, I want to say that I find this stage a bit restrictive,
since the human resources development committee considered this
piece of legislation at an almost unacceptable pace, since we were
deprived of a true second reading stage and since we have now
reached report stage without having had the opportunity to criticize
the bill as much as it deserves.
The bill contains provisions concerning the representativeness of
the board. The minister clearly stated his willingness to have a
representational board. However, it is extremely disquieting to read
in this bill a clause that says: ``The members of the Board other
than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed
by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister
after consultation by the Minister with the organizations
representative of employees or employers that the Minister
considers appropriate''-therefore, the minister can appoint whom
he pleases-``to hold office during good behaviour for terms not
exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Governor in
Council at any time for cause''.
If what we want is a representational board, we have to stipulate
right from the start that the organizations involved will appoint
their own representatives. Otherwise, the board will never be able
to claim to be representational and the minister will have to eat
humble pie.
I think it was extremely important to clarify this particular point,
because the government would have us believe that this will be a
representational board, but it is even more important, as the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve mentioned, to ensure that
parliamentarians make their presence felt and exert continuing
control over this new organization, this newly appointed Canada
Industrial Relations Board.
There is one amendment in this group of motions that I have to
criticize. It was put forward by the third party who wants board
expenses to be reimbursed in equal parts by the parties to the
dispute. This provision is extremely dangerous since the board will
have to carry out its duties whenever needed and not only
according to the capacity of the parties to pay.
This would introduce an unspeakable bias, because it could very
well be that a small union with few members, that was able to
emerge only after a very long fight, may not be able to afford the
services of the board, while the employer or the group of employers
could easily afford them. This would fly in the face of common
sense, because the search for a harmonious settlement or, at least, a
final settlement in accordance with the the rules governing labour
relations, as well as the board's judicious intervention, cannot be
dependent upon the parties' ability to pay. There is something
absolutely absurd and regressive in this idea which, I think, is not
even worth considering.
The provisions included in this grouping lead me to talk about
another amendment which has been put forward by our party. This
amendment to clause 34 is designed to allow the board, in cases
where an employer representative has been appointed, to revoke
the appointment of this representative for reasons other than what
is specified in the bill. I invite the minister's representative to listen
carefully because this small amendment could be most useful.
(1315)
In clause 34, on page 15, the bill specifies a reason for revoking
an appointment. It reads as follows:
On application by one or more employers of employees in the bargaining unit, the
Board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to
act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and
appoint a new representative.
It need not be because the employer representative is no longer
qualified to act in that capacity. This requirement could complicate
things for the board. It could be for another reason, which should be
left to the board's judgment, without requiring it on top of that to be
critical of someone that should not be there, but not for the reason
that he is no longer qualified.
I make this comment in the hope that the minister's
parliamentary secretary will take note. It is a minor point, but one
which could be useful to the board's work.
I will take the few minutes remaining to me to return to this
deeply disturbing issue of the board not being representational. The
board is being transformed, supposedly to make it more
representational. But, if we rely on the terms on the bill, and not on
the good faith of the minister, the board will not be
representational.
I predict a rocky road for this board that is nonetheless so vital to
labour relations in Canada. When the minister has full latitude to
decide who will make up the board, and then to pronounce it
representational, how can anyone think that a employer or
employee organization would feel it was well represented when
someone from this organization could appear on the board, unless it
was someone appointed by the organization? All this is possible
under the bill as it now stands. It makes no sense at all. I can tell
you that I was not at all surprised by all the intense lobbying from
organizations on this issue.
There is still time for the government to redeem itself, but it
seems to me that the fact that the board is not representational is a
very serious obstacle, when it has been announced like this, and
when they want to transform its role, as they are doing here.
8494
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
support the motion tabled by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, especially where it concerns the
CLRB, the Canada Labour Relations Board.
At one time I wrote to the minister responsible for this board
about the problems facing this body, the lack of leadership shown
by the chairman and the lack of representative members on the
board. That is why I support this motion, which asks the minister to
appoint board members from lists provided by management and
labour.
In Quebec we do not have a labour relations board. We have an
office of the labour commissioner-general. So we have one person
who hands down a decision. However, we do have grievance
adjudicators, who are appointed from lists submitted by employers
and the unions.
I think this would also be a way to limit the use of patronage
appointments, thus giving the board far more credibility with
labour and management.
(1320)
I would also like to point out that unfortunately, this bill contains
no provisions for federally regulated businesses concerning the
preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, especially the many
pregnant women in the federal public service. We are not
discussing part II of the Canada Labour Code, but amendments to
part I.
Nevertheless, I want to emphasize the need for passing
legislation as soon as possible concerning the preventive
withdrawal of women. I know that a petition to that effect is being
circulated throughout Quebec.
It will soon be March 8, which is International Women's Day. As
you know, women are becoming increasingly aware of this
fundamental right, which all women have in Quebec in provincially
regulated businesses. I fail to see how a woman working for the
provincial government can have this right while a woman in the
same building who works for the federal public service does not. I
will continue to insist on this in the weeks to come.
I also support other demands put forward by my colleagues from
Mercier and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, especially the need for
including provisions dealing with technological change in the
Canada Labour Code.
There is some legislation in Quebec that contains very clear
provisions on technological change, but these should also be
included at the federal level. I know that many unions have been
able to negotiate very clear cut and advanced provisions on
technological change. However, not all unions are in a position to
negotiate such provisions, hence the need for providing specific
provisions on technological change in the Canada Labour Code.
Once again, I wish to commend the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on the fantastic job he has done on the
subject as the official opposition's labour critic. Congratulations.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
now debating Group No. 3 which contains amendments proposed
by the Reform Party.
I would like to speak specifically to Motion No. 5. The Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development should have some
scrutiny over the remuneration paid to the CLRB. The main
estimates for 1996-97 show that the total program budget for the
CLRB is $8,791,000. That budget is not broken down enough to
show much detail. By bringing this to the board it would allow
parliamentarians to scrutinize how the money is spent and on what
it is spent: how much of it is wages, how much is travel, how much
is expenses, et cetera.
Further, a motion suggests that part time members of the CLRB
should be absorbed by the parties that are involved in the dispute.
That should apply only to part time members and would go a long
way in helping parties resolve their problems themselves rather
than bringing so many decisions to the board. At least it would not
be overloading the taxpayer to settle one argument after another.
(1325)
Reform supports Motion No. 5. We agree that the board should
have some scrutiny and knowledge of where the taxpayers' money
is being spent in this particular area. We are not interested in
micro-management but we are interested in the overall picture. If
the matter did come to the standing committee it would at least
give us an opportunity to question departmental officials.
There was a lot of talk in committee regarding the certification
of unions and whether that can be accomplished for off site workers
with or without their permission. Can it be accomplished only
when a majority of the workers agree on the certification of a union
or if the CLRB can decide when there was interference or at least
undue pressure put on the employees.
To back up my point, recently there was a case where the
majority of the people did not support the formation and
certification of a union but the board ruled in favour of the union
because the company suggested that the formation of a union might
jeopardize jobs and it might have to shut down some of its
operations. The board ruled in favour of the union and the union
was certified without a majority of employee members wanting it.
That is wrong. It is against our democratic principles. I believe that
if a majority of the employees in any operation would like to certify
a union then they should be allowed to do so. The key word here is
majority.
8495
There are several other amendments in Group No. 3 that I would
be pleased to speak to at a later date.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has put forward
motions that would give the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development a role in the remuneration of board
members, the establishment of regional board offices and the
tabling of the annual report with respect to the information
obtained under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
Bill C-66 reflects the consensus of the labour management
working group and the recommendations of the Sims task force
with respect to the establishment of a new representational Canada
Industrial Labour Relations Board.
The new board is structured to ensure effective and efficient
administration of the code and to better reflect the labour and
management communities it serves across the country. With
respect to the remuneration of board members, as is the case with
other governor in council appointees, remuneration and fees will be
set by the governor in council.
GIC positions are evaluated using a position classification plan
which ensures that appropriate relativities are maintained between
different levels of responsibility not only within a given
organization but between organizations. It allows for outside and
inside compensation relativity comparisons and application of the
principle of salary equity. Such factors could not be ensured if the
remuneration of the board members were to be determined through
a different process from other governor in council appointees.
(1330)
Bill C-66 as drafted authorizes the board to establish regional
offices that the chairperson considers necessary for the proper
performance of the board's mandate. I fail to see any rationale for
giving a standing committee of the House a role in determining
what is strictly an operational issue.
Motion No. 50, the filing of the CALURA report with respect to
the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. There is a
requirement in the act for the minister responsible to table a report
in Parliament. Standing Order 32(5) already provides that where a
report is provided to Parliament pursuant to a statutory obligation it
is deemed to have been referred to the appropriate committee.
Motion No. 6, expenses of part time members. My colleague in
the Reform Party seeks to introduce in the code the cost recovery
concept, but only with respect to expenses incurred by the part time
representative members of the board. To require the parties to
reimburse the expenses of the part time representative members
would impose a financial burden on small employers as well as on
individual employees who wish to exercise their fundamental
rights or seek redress of unfair labour practices. Such financial
barriers would limit the benefits of this new representational
structure of the board to those parties who can afford it.
Motion No. 9, revocation of employer representative. The
official opposition is also asking to modify the provision in Bill
C-66 which would allow the board at the request of one or more
employers to revoke the designation of an employer representative
in the longshoring industry if the board is satisfied that the
employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that
capacity.
This provision was included in Bill C-66 in order to address the
current lack of explicit statutory authority to change employer
representatives, an issue which was brought to the attention of the
task force by the employers active in the longshoring industry in St.
Lawrence River ports. No views or positions were put forward by
the unions involved in the geographical certification regime in
those ports with respect to this provision. Quite frankly, we fail to
understand the rationale for this motion.
Motion No. 45, certification as remedy. With respect to the
motion by my colleague from the Reform Party to delete clause 46
of Bill C-66 which authorizes the Canada Industrial Relations
Board to issue a certification order as remedy for employer unfair
labour practices, I would like to underline once again that this is a
recommendation of the task force. While in the majority of cases
existing remedies in the code for unfair labour practices are
sufficient to discourage violations or to redress illegitimate actions,
in some cases employee efforts to unionize are met with vigorous
employer opposition tactics such as firing of known union
supporters.
Such illegitimate acts may not only put a chill on organizing
efforts, they may make it impossible to measure union support
because of workers' fears of retaliation. With the exception of the
Alberta board, labour boards in Canada have the statutory
discretion to certify an applicant trade union when employer tactics
are such that the true wishes of the employee cannot be determined
by holding a representation vote. Labour boards exercise this
discretion cautiously and use certification to remedy only the most
egregious cases of employer misconduct.
The board will retain the discretion to hold a representation vote
in any application. However, it will have the means to remedy these
exceptional cases where employer misconduct has made it
impossible to determine the true wishes of the employees by
holding a representation vote.
On a related issue, we have heard the view expressed that the
Canada Labour Code should provide for a mandatory
representation vote. I would like to point out that the Sims task
force studied this issue in detail. The task force was not persuaded
that the card base system is an ineffective way of gauging
employee wishes with respect to certification applications. The
task force found that
8496
timeliness is important in dealing with certification applications
and noted that the practical impediments to timely votes in the
geographically extended federal jurisdiction and the cost of such
votes cannot be ignored and concluded that no legislative
amendment was warranted.
(1335 )
Motion No. 49 is with respect to off site workers. The Reform
Party is also seeking to require the board to obtain the consent of
individual off site workers prior to providing their names and
addresses to an applicant trade union. This provision of the bill has
been the subject of some controversy which has been fuelled
primarily by a poor understanding of its purpose and scope.
Contrary to what some of it intimated, this provision is in no way
intended to give trade unions physical access to the private homes
of off site workers which without the workers' consent would
clearly violate their rights to privacy.
As recommended by the task force, under this new provision the
board will be responsible for determining under what
circumstances the names and addresses of off site workers will be
provided in order that the union may communicate with them by
mail, by telephone or by electronic means. The board must specify
in the order the conditions to be met by the trade union to ensure
the protection of privacy and the safety of the employees
concerned.
We ask the members to support clause 50 of Bill C-66. As
drafted it strikes a fair balance between the rights of the off site
workers to exercise their freedom of association and their rights to
privacy and safety.
Motion No. 54 is with respect to transfer of appropriations. The
Minister of Labour has put forward an amendment with respect to a
transitional matter. Adoption of Motion No. 54 will allow
unexpended appropriations for the current Canada Labour
Relations Board to be transferred to the new board when it is
established. This will permit the new board to be established
without undue delay and ensure there is no interruption in the
administration of part I of the Canada Labour Code.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I look at
the motions in Group No. 3, I must state that I cannot agree with
my hon. colleague who tried to speak on behalf of the Reform
Party, which seems to be one of those things the Liberals think they
are good at. I would rather that they try to justify the legislation
they bring forward, but I realize that can be hard. Surely we can
speak for ourselves and we hope they would justify their position.
Motion No. 7 requires the Canada Industrial Relations Board to
seek approval from the human resources development committee
on the location of its head office and regional offices. This the type
of blatant political interference we want to stay away from. I
cannot think of any reason whatsoever that the HRD committee
would be in command of better knowledge, better decision making
ability or more information as to where these offices should be
located than the institution itself.
That is why the Reform Party, legitimately and with common
sense, is opposed to this type of motion. Politics has no real place
in the management of allowing these boards to do their own jobs.
Do we in the House of Commons think we are going to get into
micromanagement right down to where the offices are going to be
located, how much rent they are going to pay, how much square
footage per employee they will have, how many telephone lines
they are going to put in? Surely we would be able to delegate some
authority. It seems absolutely preposterous that we would reserve
this for ourselves, that we alone could make this type of decision. It
is commons sense that we would oppose this motion. I hope
everyone else would do the same.
Motion No. 9 of the bill would allow the CIRB to revoke the
appointment of an employer representative if it believed the
representative no longer qualified to act, et cetera. I am a little
concerned about the one sidedness of this motion. It would allow
the CIRB to revoke the appointment of an employer person on the
board but it says absolutely nothing about a union representative on
the board. This type of imbalance in legislation is what we do not
want.
Again, with common sense and with a normal type of
representation in this House, the Reform Party says surely this type
of motion does not belong in the legislation on the books of
Canada. Therefore we legitimately oppose this motion.
(1340)
I have a concern about Motion No. 45, which deletes the section
allowing certification of a union without the majority support. I am
concerned about the House getting involved in legislation giving
power to the CIRB to basically be its own judge, jury and
execution. This is the type of information that we see coming
forward in Motion No. 45.
When I look at Motion No. 49, it is not a bad motion, giving an
off site worker the option of having names and locations provided
to the union representative and organizers. I am opposed to the
Liberal position that the CIRB, again in its wisdom of being judge,
jury and executioner, will be given the right to determine on what
basis private information is going to be given to a third party.
I understand that there has been a study done by the government.
It has spent a significant number of dollars, I understand about
8497
$600,000, to study this type of information. It is still waiting for
that report to come back. However, government has decided to
proceed, to go ahead with the legislation anyway, rather than
waiting for any kind of return on its investment.
Speaking to this issue, I find it very disconcerting that time and
time again in this House we find that individual rights are being
trampled on. The legislation would give the CIRB the right to pass
on the names without the person's having any real input, saying
``no, I do not want that to happen''.
Is that not much different from when the government introduced
its gun legislation and gave the peace officers the right to search
and to seize without a search warrant? We see this type of
legislation creep in in various other areas.
We are trampling all over individual rights with this type of
legislation. We are doing it again in Bill C-66. If this government
has its way, it will do that whenever it wants. Canadians will rise up
and say ``it is time that these guys got out of here and we put in
somebody who does recognize that individual rights are there for a
reason''. That is why we are opposed to this motion.
The acrimony that can exist between management and unions in
the event of a strike can be quite serious. It is our position to do
everything we can to try to foster harmony and to bring that broken
relationship together again so that management and labour can
continue to produce goods and services to earn a living.
If we think the CIRB will be the font of all knowledge, be
endowed with wisdom beyond the average man, be given powers
that are vague, undetermined and yet very significant, and if we
think these people will be able to do this type of job as a
middleman, especially if it happens to be filled with patronage
appointments by Liberals who are passed over or who did not win
the election, we would find it rather difficult to put any credibility
in the board whatsoever.
Therefore the Reform Party and common sense say surely this
bill which says that this information can be passed to the unions
under certain circumstances should be changed to allow it provided
that the people agree.
Otherwise we will find that there will be a backlash down the
road. It may be a backlash that the government does not come back
after the election. Would that not be nice? It would be nice. Perhaps
the government would have to reconsider.
Motion No. 50 would have the corporation returns act tabled in
the House. I understand that our hon. colleagues from the separatist
party want it referred to the HRD committee. I imagine that would
be a matter of course. If we see a return tabled in the House we
would, as a matter of course, refer it to the individual committee. I
do not know exactly what my separatist friends are trying to
achieve by this motion.
(1345)
However, it may be like all the rest of the motions they have
proposed which basically are to disrupt the entire management of
the government and the affairs of Canada. I will just leave it at that.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
8498
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
Motion No. 45.
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. You said the
motion was seconded by Mr. Harper. I think you will find that was
Mr. Hanger.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
(1350)
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
8499
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
We will now move on to Group No. 4. As was agreed earlier
today, the motions in this group are deemed to have been moved,
seconded and read.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-66, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15 on page 19
with the following:
``longer in force,
(a) provided pre-board security screening services to another employer, or to a
person acting on behalf of that other employer, in an industry referred to in
paragraph (e) of the definition ``federal work, undertaking or business'' in section 2;
or
(b) provided any other service that may be designated by regulation of the Governor
in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, to another employer or a person
acting on behalf of that other employer in any industry that may be designated by
regulation of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.''
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by
(a) replacing line 34 on page 34 with the following:
``tion 24(4) or 34(6), section 37, 50 or 69,''
(b) replacing line 41 on page 34 with the following:
``subsection 24(4), paragraph''
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
He said: Mr. Speaker, members of Reform believe Motion No.
11 in Group No. 4 will have a beneficial effect on this legislation.
Let us look back at what the minister had hoped to accomplish.
His aim was to seek a balance. The more we see of the legislation,
as he outlined it, the more we see that there needs to be a balance,
yet he has not attained that.
In the area of successor rights, we have suggested that section
47.3 of the bill, which relates specifically to airline industries,
should be deleted. That is pretty self-explanatory. The Sims report
does not mention successor rights. This whole bill seems to have
been drafted after the recommendations in the Sims report and yet
there was no reference to successor rights in the Sims report. I
wonder where the minister came up with this idea.
The successor rights package is a wide ranging provision. It goes
all the way down to baggage handling, telephone services and
would interfere with existing collective agreements. For those
reasons, Reform supports the deletion of section 47.3.
The people who provide the ground services to the airlines, for
example, can have contracts with a number of carriers. That might
mean that a truck driver who was supplying services to one, two,
three or as many as seven different employers could have as many
rates of pay. It is an untenable situation to put any employee in.
They would spend more time in the day keeping track of who they
worked for and what the pay rate was than they would accomplish
in doing what they were really there to do in the first place.
Reform amendments 41 and 51 are consequential amendments
necessitated by the foregoing motions.
I think it is extremely important that there is a balance set up
between management and labour. If the scales are tipped too far in
either direction there is going to be acrimony. We certainly are not
in favour of one side having a huge advantage over the other.
(1355)
I commend the minister for what he has set out to do. His goal is
to seek a balance. What the Reform Party has suggested in its
amendments would do exactly that.
The minister will say that the motion which the Reform Party
has put would specifically apply to the pre-board security screening
service. That is not important. It is not necessary because of the
arrangements which are in place between the airports and Transport
Canada. The second part of the amendment gives cabinet the
authority to make regulations designating any other service or any
industry which would have to comply with same successor rights
provisions.
We have noticed in this legislation, as in any legislation which
has been brought in by the government, that the governor in council
has been given sweeping powers. We realize the governor in
council has to have some latitude. Not every little thing should be
brought back to Parliament for ratification or discussion. We
recognize this is an accepted way of doing business in any
legislature in Canada-
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have about four and a half
minutes remaining, but I wonder if you would give way so that we
can have Statements by Members. When we resume Government
Orders you will have the floor, if you wish to continue.
8500
It being about 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
8500
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
feel I must share with all of my colleagues in this House the
concern felt by the francophone community of eastern Ontario at
the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation
to close Montfort Hospital.
I cannot help but be pleased to see that the Prime Minister has
made representations to the Premier of Ontario, encouraging him to
consider the importance of properly serving not just the
francophone minority but all of the population in the eastern part of
this province.
[English]
The commission has demonstrated its lack of sensitivity and
understanding of the reality of the French speaking population of
eastern Ontario. This was more than apparent in its ineptitude in
not producing a French version of its report on release of the
English version and the inability of its members to respond to
questions in French at the recent press conference.
[Translation]
The community has three weeks left to express its opinion and it
will be very vocal in doing so.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
summer, the Prime Minister did not hesitate to support Howard
Galganov in the Quebec signage matter. He has, however, always
been in less of a hurry to defend the interests of francophones in
English Canada.
His first reaction to the announced closing of the only French
language hospital in Ontario was to refuse to support the
francophones. In so doing, the Prime Minister clearly demonstrated
what Canada is: a country which rushes to the defence of the
slightest complaint by English Quebecers, but barely reacts to the
conditions in which francophones in English Canada find
themselves, particularly when those conditions favour their
assimilation.
The Prime Minister finally gave in to public pressure and spoke
to the Premier of Ontario. He must, however, do more than that; he
must also speak out against all of the other English speaking
provinces which, like Ontario, offer neither health services, social
services or cultural services in French, thus making it clear that the
only language in use in Canada-
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member,
but his time has run out.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals crow about reducing the deficit, but how have
they reduced it? Mainly by increases of $25 billion in tax revenue
and cuts to health care and social programs of almost $7 billion.
They even announced a major CPP hike on the backs of Canadians
days before the budget and hoped it would be overshadowed.
(1400)
The government has implemented 36 tax increases and craftily
used the deindexed income tax system to its benefit. The Liberal
government has increased the national debt by $100 billion, and we
still have unemployment rates of nearly 10 per cent.
If the last four Liberal budgets were so successful why were
there a record number of bankruptcies last year? Why are
Canadians carrying record debt loads? Why are personal savings at
record lows?
Canadians know the truth. They will not be fooled by a Liberal
budget that spins rhetoric instead of offering hope.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
summer tourism season is fast approaching. On Prince Edward
Island our tourism industry is quickly preparing for a record
breaking year. This is the year we open the Confederation Bridge
between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
There are plenty of other reasons to visit Charlottetown. In
particular, on Canada Day weekend we have the Festival of the
Lights. On Labour Day weekend we have the Festival of the
Fathers. At Province House, the provincial legislature and site of
the 1864 Charlottetown conference, an audio-visual program is run
by Parks Canada.
Throughout the summer we have the Confederation Centre of
Arts including the Charlottetown Festival Young Company.
Besides showing the famous Anne of Green Gables play there are
number of heritage events such as a film series, speakers series and
a summer lecture series.
8501
These are just some of the highlights of our summer season.
I encourage all Canadians and all visitors to visit this summer the
birthplace of Confederation.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because I have been critical of government funding of
special interest lobbies and because I have called for more
transparency and accountability from charities, I have become the
target of repeated smear campaigns and attack ads by one of those
lobbies, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, and its front
charity, the Smoking and Health Foundation.
Yet these organizations which are really one and the same have
been receiving $500,000 yearly from Health Canada. This is
unacceptable. Health Canada should not be bankrolling an
organization that is trying to crush an MP who is merely doing the
job he was elected to do. This has to stop.
Health Canada should be using taxpayers' dollars to finance
health care and not lobbyists.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the beginning of International Women's
Week, a global celebration of women's accomplishments in
seeking gender equality.
Since women's struggles were officially recognized through the
first International Women's Day in 1911 great strides have been
made but much remains to be done.
In Canadian politics, for example, less than 20 per cent of the
members of the House are female compared to 52 per cent of the
general population.
A more shocking imbalance occurs in science where less than 5
per cent of faculty and engineering are female, a statistic women
like Dr. Lillian Dyck are working hard to correct. A biochemist at
the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Dyck takes very seriously her
duties as a role model for girls and women in science.
Having completed her own chemistry degree without ever
encountering a female professor, Dr. Dyck hopes to encourage
more female students to seek careers in science and engineering.
The supportive atmosphere and changing stereotypical attitudes are
crucial if the imbalance in this male dominated field is to be
corrected.
Just as in politics, women in science need to see other women in
the jobs to which they aspire. Scientists like Dr. Lillian Dyck are
making sure this happens.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's lack of vision on aboriginal affairs has
been exposed.
Last week at the meeting of national chiefs the AFN agreed to
stage a national day of protest on April 17 due to Liberal inaction.
Again last week the Prime Minister and the minister refused to
meet the AFN to discuss the $60 million royal commission. Why
do they duck and weave?
Two weeks ago an aboriginal Liberal senator said the federal
government should stop funding the Assembly of First Nations.
This week the minister is barging ahead on the misguided Indian
Act II to give the appearance of doing something.
The Liberals are so compromised on aboriginal affairs that their
solution has become spend, spend, spend. David Nahwegahbow
has a word for the minister. Last week this author of the aboriginal
affairs section of the Liberal red book said: ``For the Liberals to say
they fulfilled their promises in the red book was a lie''.
The Speaker: As the member is well aware, we cannot use other
people's words to say what we are not permitted to say in the
House. I would like the hon. member to withdraw those words.
(1405)
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, he said it. I will withdraw it.
The Speaker: I put the question to you. It is just a straight yes or
no. Will you withdraw?
Mr. Duncan: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 5, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: ``In terms of
international relations, human rights may be considered a
fundamental issue that is an immediate element of any relationship
regardless of what else is involved''.
For three years now, Tran Trieu Quan has been a prisoner in
Vietnam in a matter of fraud in which he is the victim rather than
the perpetrator. The policy of effective influence based on dialogue
and encouragement has not produced any of the results we might
expect.
The government continues to prefer a trade approach to
international relations combined with a muted human rights policy.
In November 1994, during his trip to Asia, the Prime Minister said:
``-I prefer opening markets and trading; the walls will eventually
come down''.
8502
In the prison where he has been languishing for more than three
year, Tran Trieu Quan is still waiting for the walls to crack and
let in the light of day. When will the government decide to speak
up?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib. Dem.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's strategy for job
creation has been truly a failure. This was demonstrated by the fact
that some three million Canadians applied for unemployment
insurance last year, which cost the government more than $13
billion. That is the Prime Minister's do nothing job strategy.
On another point I want to congratulate every hard working
Canadian for contributing a total of $26 billion over the past three
years toward reducing the federal deficit. I am pleased the Prime
Minister has acknowledged their contribution. These Canadians are
solely responsible for reducing our federal deficit and the Prime
Minister must not take any credit for this. The victory is not his and
Canadians know this.
The hard working middle class Canadians had their pockets
drained once again and we must thank all of them for their
generosity.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is often said that the Canadian mining industry is a
world leader in terms of technological development, environmental
stewardship and mineral production. In a similar fashion Canada is
gaining a reputation in the manner in which it handles issues of
concern to the mining industry.
There is no better example of this than South Africa's use of the
Whitehorse mining initiative as a means of bringing stakeholders
together to promote mining. The Whitehorse mining initiative
brought together Canadian governments, the mining industry, and
labour, environmental and aboriginal groups to set out common
principles and an agenda to deal with issues facing the mining
industry.
Now South Africa is following Canada's lead to assist it in
reforming its minerals and mines policy. I applaud our Minister of
Natural Resources and all participants in the Whitehorse mining
initiative for their leadership on mining issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mike Harris and the Conservative government of Ontario
are slashing the province's hospital services.
The health services restructuring committee has just
recommended the closure of the Montfort hospital, the only French
language hospital in Ontario. To close the Montfort is to threaten
French life in Ontario, particularly in eastern Ontario where 40 per
cent of the francophones live.
Mike Harris should be ashamed. The Ontario Minister of
Francophone Affairs, Noble Villeneuve, the only francophone in
cabinet, should also be ashamed for not defending the rights of
Franco-Ontarians in this matter.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
March 8 is International Women's Day. This day is an opportunity
to celebrate the many important achievements of women over the
past centuries as well as today. It is also a time to pay tribute to the
women who are so important to us in our daily lives: our partners,
mothers, sisters, daughters, colleagues and friends.
(1410)
You will no doubt recall that International Women's Day was
instituted after the major strikes that took place in the middle of the
19th century, when industrialization drew women to the labour
market in droves.
In 1977, the United Nations officially invited nations to dedicate
one day to celebrating the equality of women. As a new century
draws near, efforts in support of gender equality must not only
continue but increase.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, please join me in celebrating
International Women's Day.
* * *
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Zellers just
announced the final closure of its distribution centre in my riding
of Bourassa.
In the name of corporate restructuring, 379 employees will lose
their jobs in Montreal North, a community which is already
struggling with more than its fair share of unemployment and
poverty as it is. Some of the jobs will be transferred to Toronto,
where Zellers moved its head office in 1996. With its anti-Quebec
policies, the federal government is largely responsible for this
closure and the resulting human tragedy.
8503
To Zellers employees, I offer my support and solidarity. Of the
federal government, I ask that the necessary steps be taken to get
this company to reconsider its decision and remain in operation
in Montreal North, where they have a well-trained, skilled and
qualified workforce.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while in opposition Liberals knew that payroll taxes kill
jobs. However it seems power has clouded their memories.
Here is a reality check:
Every time we raise the contribution rate for the CPP or the QPP-we increase the
tax burden on workers and employers-such increases are difficult to justify.
The current Minister of Labour said that.
How about this one?
When you look at the burden of payroll taxes on small firms, you have to include,
of course, the Canada pension plan employer contributions-the combination of all
these taxes impose an onerous burden, especially on small and medium sized
businesses.
Our industry minister said that.
Since the two ministers most associated with employment know
that the finance minister's 73 per cent CPP increase will kill jobs,
why do they not speak up? So much for the jobs, jobs, jobs
promise. It looks like the only jobs and pensions this government
cares about are its own.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the human resources development minister and the hon.
member for Mount-Royal attended the opening of the black
community resource centre in Montreal.
This centre, which will receive funding from the Canadian
government of more than $1 million for the next three years, is
desgined to promote social integration of young black anglophones
in the Greater Montreal area. The activities are aimed at a clientele
from 0 to 25 years of age. In co-operation with the qualified staff
and the many volunteer organizations that will be involved, the
centre will try to develop an awareness of the psychosocial, health,
education and economic needs of the youth from that community.
This is another example of our government's interest in working,
in partnership with the stakeholders in the sector, toward improving
living conditions for our young people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no industry more important in my riding than
tourism. It accounts for half the jobs in Parry Sound-Muskoka
and it is an important economic generator throughout rural Canada.
The tourism industry supports over half a million jobs
Canada-wide. It is a $26 billion industry and the Canadian Tourism
Commission has been successful in achieving a 13 per cent
increase in our international tourism receipts which is leading to
even more jobs.
This year's budget builds on that progress. The $15 million
annual increase to the Canadian Tourism Commission means that
we will be better positioned to market Canada around the world.
Our commitment of $50 million to the Business Development
Bank of Canada will result in $250 million in new loans for tourism
operators in rural Canada, in areas like mine where the operators
have been starved for capital in the last few years.
Our government is committed to tourism. It is committed to
creating jobs for Canadians. It is committed to rural Canada.
_____________________________________________
8503
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with its tobacco bill, the government is getting ready to
strike a very hard blow to the economy of Montreal and of all of
Quebec.
A great many major cultural and sports events take place in
Quebec, and the government, through its bill, which places very
serious limitations on sponsorships, is going to deal a fatal blow to
the sports, cultural and economic life of Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
realize that, if his government goes ahead with its bill, there will be
no television coverage next weekend of the Australian Grand Prix,
8504
or of any other grand prix later this season, and that the health
minister's bill will mean the end of the Montreal Grand Prix,
something Quebecers can never accept?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we introduced a bill that was supported by the official
opposition party.
I could point out a number of the members' concerns. I could say
that the whole purpose of this bill is to protect the health of young
people. I believe that the age at which people take up smoking is
lower in Quebec than elsewhere.
We are not banning all forms of advertising. We are proposing
regulations making it possible to operate under stricter rules, so as
to mitigate the effects. The minister's bill is being considered by
the House of Commons. We have made a few concessions to
accommodate people. The government's concern, however, is to
ensure that the health of Canadians and of Quebecers is properly
protected.
In this connection, I quote Quebec's health minister, Mr.
Rochon, who said: ``It is a step in the right direction''. He told the
press: ``Sponsorship is subliminal advertising. It is a very powerful
way of encouraging consumption of the product, particularly by
young people''.
With this in mind, we must focus on people's health, and try to
work out an arrangement in so far as possible. There were
restrictions with respect to sports events throughout the world.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister can leave Jean Rochon in Quebec City.
We are speaking to the federal government, to the federal health
minister, to the Prime Minister himself, because he is the one
jeopardizing the very existence of most of the major cultural and
sports events, which are held primarily in Quebec. That is what we
are talking about.
Yes, it is true that the opposition supports the principle of
limiting tobacco consumption, but the advertising measures are
going to jeopardize culture and sports. And that is what we are
against.
Can the Prime Minister turn a deaf ear to the militant members
in his own Liberal Party who met in Quebec over the weekend and
expressed their concern about the fate reserved for cultural and
sports events, and who spoke critically of the health minister's bill
to the responsible ministers in the Quebec government? Can the
Prime Minister turn a deaf ear even to the federal Liberals from
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we spoke with those involved, they asked us for
more time. The legislation was to take effect immediately in
December, and we decided to grant an extension until October
1998, in order to give the organizations in question time to adjust.
Mr. Crête: They are not happy.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Listen, Mr. Speaker, I am being
asked to accommodate people, to help. We are saying that the
deadline will be October 1, 1998 in order to help those affected
make the adjustment. The legislation was to take effect on the date
it was passed by Parliament. It is a bill that opposition members
supported. They voted in favour of it. But they are behaving like
political opportunists and no longer care right now about the health
of Quebec's young people.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing his ignorance of the
Standing Orders.
Some hon members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would simply like to ask you
not to use too many words that could be construed-
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say.
Ignorance means that one does not know. I will put it another way.
It is scandalous that, after 30 years in Parliament, the Prime
Minister does not understand that it is possible to vote in favour of
a principle at second reading, because that is what is being voted on
at second reading, and against a bill at third reading, because we do
not like the means being proposed. That is what I meant.
The fact is that the same minister who wanted to ban raw milk
cheese because it was a risk to people is now presenting us with a
bill that makes no sense.
I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a minister or a Liberal
member from Quebec who will rise on that side of the House to
defend Quebec and Quebec's interests? Let him rise so we can see
him.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the very reason we agreed to give two years to the
group in question so it could adjust to the situation.
When the bill was introduced, it was to take effect this year.
Because of the representations made, we allowed a one year
extension. We have not completely banned sponsorships by the
tobacco companies. We have compromised in this connection.
They can still advertise. There will be regulations allowing them to
advertise in certain locations.
But one thing is important, and that is that we must look after the
health of young people. It is not acceptable to have an attitude-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Either we do something, or we
do not. The fact is that the opposition party does not have the
courage to say that it puts the health of young Quebecers, of young
Canadians, first.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there are ways of discouraging smoking and improving
the health of our young people, without at the same time jeopardiz-
8505
ing the future of cultural and sporting events. It is like chewing
gum and walking at the same time, some people just cannot do it.
A number of cultural and sporting events are in danger. The
Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, the jazz
festival, the Benson and Hedges fireworks, the Just for Laughs
festival, the Quebec summer festival, the Montreal international
tennis championships.
Does the Prime Minister realize that all of these events are now
in jeopardy because of this bill, which the Montreal Chamber of
Commerce labels as fundamentalist legislation by the ayatollahs of
tobacco?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can well understand my colleague's concern for support of the
arts and cultural groups in this country.
As the hon. member and as his colleague fully know, there is no
banning of sponsorship promotion. There is a restriction of
sponsorship promotion.
It would be nice in this House if members of the official
opposition could stand in their places and voice their concerns, as
they have on this issue, when it comes to the health and care of
young children in this country. I wish they would stand with
children on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if there were a Grand Prix on the Cabot Trail, the
Ayatollah from Nova Scotia would sing a different tune.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1425)
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to take great care
with your choice of words. Would my hon. colleague please ask his
question?
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which one you were
referring to, but I will go on.
Thousands of jobs are at stake, in Montreal alone. This means
hundreds of millions of dollars in economic spinoffs jeopardized
by a bad decision by this government.
Outside of all the verbiage by the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Health, what does the Prime Minister have to say today
to the thousands of people who will end up unemployed because of
this bill, which goes beyond what its objectives ought to be, of
reducing tobacco use, rather than doing away with Montreal's
sports and cultural events, as this government is doing its darndest
to do?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are now seeing what a leadership campaign is all about.
The hon. member opposite forgets to put a few facts on the table:
40,000 lives each and every year from tobacco consumption; over
14,000 in the province of Quebec. I ask the hon. member opposite
and the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois to stand up for once
and support the young people and the children of this country.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Saturday was the deadline for people to contribute to RRSPs, so
retirement income has definitely been on the minds of Canadians.
They want to know why, though, when it comes to the Canada
pension plan they have to pay more for less, 73 per cent more. They
want to know why 10 per cent of their salary is only going to get
them $9,000 a year through CPP when the same amount invested in
the safest RRSP would get them $26,000 a year. That is nearly
three times more than with the Canada pension plan.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he rip off young
Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to ensure that young and middle aged Canadians
will have some support when the time comes for them to retire.
They have contributed for years to this plan and the Reform Party
wants to get rid of it. All those who have paid into the plan for years
will lose money if we do not intervene at this time.
However, the Reform Party is always happy to ensure that the
rich will be better off and the poor will pay.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
say somebody who opted out of the MP pension plan hardly has a
guarantee of being rich down the road. Therefore I have a vested
interest in making sure that the Canada pension plan or something
like it is going to work for Canadians when they get old.
He says that he wants to make sure that young Canadians will
have some support. I agree with that but I think they should have
more than some support. Let us get them into private RRSPs so
they can get a lot more than just some support. Older Canadians
will also feel the pinch.
Under the Liberal plan a self-employed couple aged 60 will pay
an additional $4,436 in CPP premiums and get $1,000 less for it
when we factor in the Liberal clawback of the new seniors benefit.
8506
I again ask the Prime Minister how can he rip off older
Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a program that was organized by the federal
government with all the provincial governments. This is an
agreement that was signed with the provincial governments, the
government of Mr. Klein in Alberta and the government of the
premier of Ontario.
All the governments are telling the Canadian people that the
Canadian pension plan is needed for the future. There is unanimous
consent in the land. There is only the Reform Party that has some
very funny goals about preserving the future for the younger
generation.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the Prime Minister talks about unanimity in the land I have heard
that phrase somewhere before in this Chamber and it just blew up
in their face in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
This government has a real double standard when it comes to
pensions. The Prime Minister is asking Canadians to pay more for
less but he certainly is not making the same demand on his MPs.
Canadians are being asked to pay 10 per cent of their pay cheques
for a measly $9,000 in Canada pension plan pensions.
(1430)
The Liberal members opposite, and of course those others who
have put into the MP pension plan, are paying 10 per cent of their
pay cheques but they are going to get $40,000 plus in MP pensions.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this. How can he rationalize
asking Canadians to pay more for less when Liberals pay less for
more and continue to enjoy their lavish gold plated pension plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we were to believe what the Reform Party has proposed
on that score it would cost workers 15 per cent of their income to
meet the goals it has in mind.
We are making sure, because we are acting now, that it will not
be 12, 13 and 14 per cent but it will be 10 per cent, and that will
guarantee to the Canadian people that by the year 2020 we will
have a Canada pension plan. This is what the Canadian people
want. It is what the provincial governments want. It is what the
Canadian people will get.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Faced with Liberal militants who were worried about the
survival of cultural and sports events, the Minister of Labour, who
is also responsible for the Liberals' election campaign in Quebec,
said on the weekend that after tobacco, his government might
consider alcohol, to the horror of the President of the Treasury
Board who took his arm and motioned him to stop talking. It is
unbelievable how far removed this government is from reality.
Does the Prime Minister realize that by letting his Minister of
Health, his Minister for Nova Scotia, a man who does not know
anything about the economic situation in Quebec, go on like this,
his government is turning on a sector that is in good shape in
Quebec at the present time? Why is the minister attacking what
works in Quebec? Is it because, in the final instance, the Prime
Minister is upset when Quebec is doing well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to repeat that we are not taking
away the possibility of advertising. We are making regulations to
ensure it has the least possible impact on young people in Quebec,
those who are most at risk.
It is reported that the average age at which people start to smoke
regularly in Quebec is 14. In Quebec, people start to smoke at an
earlier age than anywhere else in the country. That is why we are
taking steps to try to protect young people against the dangers of
starting to smoke at too early an age.
Events can still be held. Advertising will be regulated as it is in
France. As the U.S. President said in his State of the Union
message a few weeks ago, he intends to do the same. Above all, we
must protect the health of our young people. In Canada some
advertising will be allowed, although some countries are going to
prohibit advertising altogether.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is so keen on going ahead with this bill
because he wants to save his party and the minister who urged
people to vote against the Liberals if the legislation was not passed
before the next election. That is the real problem.
Will the Prime Minister agree that his minister's stubbornness is
not about health and very much about political concerns?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau said that by
voting in favour of this bill at second reading, the official
opposition agreed with its objectives, and more specifically with
protecting the health of young people under 18.
On December 5, 1996, the hon. member for Lévis said: ``Since
we agree with most of the government's objectives regarding a
reduction in health costs associated with tobacco use, we will
support the bill''. And so on and so forth.
8507
The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies said that on
the other hand, it was obvious that sponsored cultural and sports
events as such were safe pursuits that might even encourage young
people who wanted to smoke to engage in sports activities.
It was the members opposite who told the Minister of Health in
December to go ahead. Today, for purely electoral reasons, without
any consideration for protecting the health of young Quebecers,
they have changed their minds. Quebecers know that the health of
young people is important.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that the Reform plan
for the Canada pension plan would protect current seniors and
would also make it possible for future Canadians to have a pension
at all.
My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Last
Friday the President of the Treasury Board inferred that increasing
annual Canada pension plan premiums $1,300 per employee will
prevent the program from going broke.
Will the minister now promise Canadians that there will be no
further increase in Canada pension plan premiums and that there
will be no further decreases in Canada pension plan benefits?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party's
numbers are usually wrong and they are again in this question.
Reformers have not stated how they are going to pay the millions of
current seniors or the people over the age of 50 who are dependent
on the Canada pension plan for future benefits. How are they going
to pay them with their plan?
Their plan will not provide disability or children's benefits.
Their plan will not provide a drop-out provision. It will not provide
indexation. They will put all the risks in the hands of the workers.
Their pension plan is not the pension plan we have in the Liberal
Party. We will support the Canada pension plan and the provinces
will support the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are not fooled by this. When the Liberals are
asked a reasonable question and stand up and respond with rubbish
and prevarication we can see right through it.
A tax by any other name is still a tax. The Minister of Industry
referred to Canada pension plan premiums as a payroll tax. The
Minister of Finance has said payroll taxes are a cancer on job
creation.
My question to the Prime Minister is how many jobs will be
killed by the $10 billion job killing Liberal payroll tax grab?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that
question is their plan will require people to put money into an
RRSP.
How many jobs will that kill? It will kill a lot more jobs than the
15 per Canada pension plan. It is a pension plan, an investment
plan. They do not understand the difference between a tax and an
investment in a pension plan.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Last Friday, the federal government revealed its argument in its
reference to the Supreme Court. As always, the language is
irresponsible and provocative. All it is capable of doing, in fact, is
subscribing to the opinion of an expert, who holds that, and I quote:
``The only way for an entity to secede unilaterally is by traditional
means, which involves winning a war of independence, as did
Bangladesh-''.
Will the minister acknowledge that his government is acting
irresponsibly in taking an extremist position and raising the spectre
of civil war?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out once
again why the Government of Canada sought the opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada.
I would remind the hon. member that the stance taken by the PQ
government of Quebec has made this necessary.
The attorney general of Quebec has denied the role of the courts
and the Constitution in this debate. As the attorney general of
Canada, I have the responsibility of maintaining and protecting the
role of the courts and the Constitution. So, the reference to the
court has brought out fundamental issues in order to resolve these
disputes.
(1440)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would point out that the minister failed to answer this
question, which, nevertheless, is in his brief. That is quite
distressing.
8508
In its arguments, the federal court also contends that a
constitutional amendment would be required for Quebec to declare
independence. I would like to understand, for it is vitally
important.
Is the Minister of Justice telling us that, if a majority of
Quebecers vote in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, a province like
Prince Edward Island, which has at best 93,000 voters, could block
the democratic will of over five million Quebec voters?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the brief we presented Friday
afternoon, including the experts' opinion, sets out the federal
government's position on the three questions before the courts.
The experts' opinions support our position, which is that, under
both national and international law, a government does not, as the
PQ government of Quebec claims, have the right to unilaterally
declare the separation of a province from a democratic and
independent state.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In a letter written by General Boyle on March 21, 1996, prior to
his testimony at the Somalia inquiry, he declared that the inquiry
should not investigate the issue of high level cover-up. Boyle said
don't investigate and, surprise, the minister shut down the inquiry
before the commissioners could investigate the issue of cover-up.
Out of all people, why did the minister accept and implement
Boyle's advice? How can the minister explain that?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member referred to a letter allegedly written by Jean Boyle in
which he said: Do not investigate the cover-up. If the hon. member
would send me a copy of the letter I would be happy to respond to
the question, and specifically to the quote to which he has just
referred.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the government should have disqualified Boyle's
advice because he was a witness before the inquiry. Boyle wanted
the inquiry shut down. The government accepted and implemented
Boyle's advice. This defence minister shut down the Somalia
inquiry.
Canadians want to know what the government is hiding.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be very
honest with the hon. gentlemen, as I say, I will look at the letter
when he sends it to me in which Jean Boyle said ``do not'' or ``do''
shut down the inquiry, whatever the quote was.
However, in the time I have been Minister of National Defence,
General Boyle did not have much time to give me much advice.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The merging of two major pulp and paper companies, Abitibi
Price and Stone Consolidated, resulted in the creation of that
industry's largest company in the world, with sales in excess of $4
billion. However, despite the fact that the majority of plants and
workers of this new conglomerate are in Quebec, there is still no
guarantee that the corporation's head office will be in Montreal.
Can the minister tell us if his government made representations
to convince the new company's senior management to maintain its
Canadian head office in Montreal?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is a strange question, given that the Treasury Board does not have a
say as to where companies set up their head offices.
I should tell the hon. member that, in our system, this decision is
up to the companies themselves. They are the ones that decide
where they will set up their head offices. This is what will happen
in this case.
(1445)
Mr. Bellehumeur: How reassuring.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
understand that the President of the Treasury Board is also the
minister responsible for Quebec, and we are concerned as to
whether he is protecting Quebec's interests.
On October 22, the Prime Minister made the following comment
before the Montreal Chamber of Commerce: ``Through work, and
in a spirit of co-operation, we can put Montreal back on its feet. We
have no choice: we must succeed''.
Are we to understand that, when the time comes to provide
concrete support to Montreal's economy, the government will not
do anything but resort to empty rhetoric?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are protecting Quebec's interests by creating jobs, as we do when
8509
we invest in Bombardier or Pratt & Whitney. We are helping
Quebec by providing good government at the federal level, thus
lowering interest rates and increasing investments in that province.
We are providing good government, precisely to help Quebecers
overcome the uncertainty generated by the opposition's stand on
the issue of separation. What creates problems in Quebec is the fact
that the opposition spends all its time promoting sovereignty, thus
increasing economic uncertainty in Quebec and reducing the
number of jobs. Quebec's real interests lie in good government.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Presently representatives from 150 countries are meeting in
Bonn to draft an accord aimed at reducing global emissions of
carbon dioxide. Apparently Canada has said that it will not meet
the target of stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000.
Can the minister say what she plans to do to meet both the
carbon dioxide reduction commitment made by Canada under the
climate change convention and the further reductions promised in
the red book in view of the fact that voluntary efforts are proving to
be insufficient?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is timely,
considering that starting tomorrow in Bonn, the world's nations
will begin another series of negotiations in relation to the challenge
of global warming.
Let me assure the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister
of the Environment, and I announced 45 new or enhanced measures
when we met with our provincial colleagues in Toronto in
December. Those measures include things like green power
procurement in federal buildings, enhanced energy efficiency
regulations for appliances and small engines.
However, the hon. member is right that is will be very hard for us
as a nation to achieve the stabilization goals. But by working with
other stakeholders like the provinces, industry and environmental
groups, ours is a record of which we can be proud. Ours is a record
that reflects momentum and we will continue to work on this
difficult global problem.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hospital
closures in the Ottawa area are a direct result of the Liberal
government's cuts to medicare, in fact 40 per cent in cuts to
medicare.
Why does the Minister of Health not just put up a sign on every
closed hospital that says: ``This closure courtesy of the Liberal
Party of Canada?''
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the thesis promoted by members of the third party is totally
inaccurate.
If one were to read the comprehensive report of the national
forum, a body which was appointed by the Prime Minister, it
clearly said that Canada has the second most expensive health care
system in the world, that our health care system is not underfunded,
and that the problems with our health care system have more to do
with management than anything else.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
missed one little fact from the health care forum. The Liberals are
going down to $11.1 billion, but the forum said to keep the funding
at $12.5 billion, which is quite a difference.
The hospital closures are a direct result of the 40 per cent in cuts.
The Liberals promised to save medicare. What did they deliver?
Hospitals closing.
Why does every hospital not put up a great big brass plaque
which states: ``This closure courtesy of the Liberal Party of
Canada?''
(1450 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again the hon. member from the Reform Party is somewhat
negligent with the facts.
As a result of the economic policies of the government, we have
saved provincial treasuries in excess of $1.6 billion on interest
rates alone. In addition, for this fiscal year we have provided the
provinces $8.6 billion in revenues for equalization.
Because of the Minister of Finance's budget of not this year, but
last year, the government has provided not only a cash floor but a
minimum of $25.1 billion to the provinces for the purposes of
social programs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
These last few weeks, the media have reported several cases of
cloning using adult animal cells. Everyone has been able to see the
results of a cloning experiment carried out by Scottish researchers
8510
on a sheep called Dolly. Many experts have serious concerns about
the possibility of human cloning.
Does the minister recognize that this is a matter of great urgency,
given the tremendous progress made in research, and that he must
amend the Criminal Code as soon as possible to prohibit human
cloning?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question because it is a serious and
a substantive one.
Members will recall that we introduced legislation to deal with
the very subject matter to which the hon. member referred. It is in
committee at the present time. The legislation has two phases,
phase one and phase two. If we could get the co-operation of the
various political parties I am certain we could move in a very
expeditious way to have that legislation pass through the House of
Commons as well as the upper house.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
Minister of Justice undertake to act before the next election and
amend the Criminal Code in order to prohibit human cloning, in
which case he will have the full support of the official opposition to
quickly pass such an amendment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the substance and the purpose of the bill to which I referred is to
address the kinds of concerns that he has raised.
I only hope that members can focus on this subject matter in a
non-partisan way and have it passed expeditiously in the House so
that the kinds of fears that he has raised will not continue in this
country at least.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, unbelievably the
French government is going to issue a stamp to glorify de Gaulle's
vive le Quebec libre visit .This is utterly reprehensible and is a
direct attack on Canadian sovereignty and unity.
Is the government unwilling to defend the country's unity and
sovereignty and demand that the French government stop
supporting Quebec separatists?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are aware that some consideration is being given to a
stamp of President de Gaulle but no decision has been taken. The
hon. member should tone down his rhetoric and his inflammatory
remarks until we get a full explanation.
We have been in touch with officials of the French government
to ask for information and an explanation. As soon as we receive
that we would be very glad to inform the hon. member.
Once again the Reform Party is jumping the gate too quickly. It
should not draw conclusions until the proper information is
received. I know the Reform Party does not like to be confused by
the facts but in this case we prefer to know exactly what is going
on.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this sounds very
much like what was said during the referendum: be happy, keep
quiet, do not say anything.
The Prime Minister just completed a visit to France and he said
that relations have never been better. Is this stamp an example of
the relationship getting better? Will the Prime Minister stand up for
Canada? Will he stop catering to the separatists and will he call the
French ambassador in and tell him to butt out or get out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first time I have been accused of being on the
side of the separatists.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1455 )
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I can see the leader of the
separatist party smiling. He has never been my biggest problem.
We will wait for the facts. What the Minister of Foreign Affairs
said is reasonable. There are rumours about it. There are a lot of
rumours about the Reform Party too but we do not believe them all
the time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
[English]
I am concerned because the province of British Columbia has
announced that it will withdraw from the agreement concerning the
free flow of goods and services between Canadian provinces. This
is at a time when all of Canada, especially the economy of B.C., is
benefiting from freer trade.
Would the minister comment on how he thinks B.C. businesses
will be affected by this decision when trying to enter into contracts
in other provinces?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue to which the member refers is the announcement
by the province of British Columbia that it will not proceed with
8511
negotiations to extend the application of the internal trade
agreement to municipal governments as well as schools, hospitals
and administrative agencies of its government.
As was agreed in 1994 when the federal government and the
provinces signed the internal trade agreement, it was foreseen that
we would complete negotiations to extend that chapter within a
year. The third anniversary is now approaching.
This decision is regrettable from the point of view of the benefits
that could be enjoyed by British Columbia taxpayers if
procurement were opened to firms from other parts of Canada. It is
also regrettable because other provinces may choose not to extend
the benefits of the agreement to firms based in British Columbia.
It is my hope that the Government of British Columbia, which
entered into this agreement in good faith and negotiated by the
current premier of the province, will reconsider its position.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, instead of working ferociously to bring about the demise
of sports and cultural events, the Minister of Health should give
researchers the money they need to pursue the fight against AIDS.
Can the minister tell the House if the government intends to
continue supporting the research and prevention activities
undertaken as part of the national AIDS strategy after March 31,
1998?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yes. we have embarked on a consultation process with various
stakeholders, including the advisory group to the minister, on the
issue of AIDS and the difficulties that it provides our citizens.
We were hoping to raise the matter in a larger forum with
provincial governments as well. As the hon. member knows,
funding for the second phase is not due to terminate until March
1998. We have some time in which to line things up in the proper
way.
We are giving careful and due consideration to the suggestions
that a variety of groups are making, including the hon. member
opposite.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 16-year-olds cannot buy cigarettes, 16-year-olds cannot
vote but in 1988 the Conservative government reduced the age of
consent from 16 to 14.
Liberal proposals continue to do nothing to prevent children
from being commandeered by adults for sex. It is no accident that
the average age of recruitment for prostitution is 14. What will the
justice minister do to protect our most vulnerable citizens? When
will he raise the age of consent from 14 to 16?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done a wide variety of
things with respect to children being exploited through
prostitution. One of the issues, but only one of them, is the issue of
age.
For example, we put before the House legislation which would
impose mandatory minimum penitentiary terms on those who serve
as pimps for children in prostitution. It is legislation that will make
a difference.
We have worked in concert with provincial attorneys general and
authorities throughout the country in a co-ordinated effort to crack
down on child prostitution.
(1500)
On those occasions when I visited cities throughout Canada I
have driven with the police in their cars. I have seen the tragic sight
of children working the streets as prostitutes. I have conferred with
those in the provinces who are working with the social services
because this is more than just a matter of criminal law.
I use this occasion to say to the hon. member that I fully share
her objectives. We have taken concrete legislative and policy
action against children in prostitution and I urge her to join us in
those continued-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mackenzie.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture.
During the government's move to deregulate the branchlines in
our railway system it assured Canadians who lived on those
branchlines that the loss of protection to the year 2000 would not
matter because they could set up short lines to provide their own
service.
We are now finding out that the railways and the elevator
companies seem to have an alliance whereby the lines will not be
sold without the condition that no grain will move on them.
8512
What does the government plan to do to offset this, now that
it has set this program in motion? How will these communities
be able to use their short lines if no elevators can be situated on
their rights of way?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new Canada
Transportation Act is at least in part to shift the emphasis away
from what used to be a policy of branchline abandonment as the
only game in town toward a new policy where at least there is the
alternative of considering seriously a short line operation where it
makes economic sense to do so.
In my province, which is also the hon. gentleman's province, it
would be a big help to the short line industry if the provincial NDP
government would change the law with respect to successor rights
so short lines could exist in Saskatchewan.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Jordan Sokolov, MP, President of
Parliamentary Group Union of Democratic Forces of the National
Assembly of Bulgaria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I should like to designate March 5, March
7, March 10 and March 12 as allotted days pursuant to Standing
Order 81.
_____________________________________________
8512
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table in the House today, in both official
languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were
made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to
amend the Income Tax Act, the income tax application rules and
another act related to the Income Tax Act, and I ask that an order of
the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
* * *
A message from His Excellence the Governor General
transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year
ending March 31, 1997, was presented by the President of the
Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour today to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development. It relates to Bill C-65, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction, and to its reporting with amendments.
The committee wishes to thank witnesses and interested citizens
in all parts of the country for their thoughtful contributions to this
timely and important piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 57th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the
membership and the associate membership of standing committees
and standing joint committees.
8513
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 57th report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-377, an act to amend the Referendum Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce my
private member's bill, an act to amend the Referendum Act. This
act would allow electors to petition for a referendum on proposed
legislation or on constitutional amendment.
The act provides for any questions supported by citizens in this
way to be put to the electors. It also sets up procedures for
establishing committees to co-ordinate the support for and to
co-ordinate the opposition to the question.
Canadian electors are educated, informed and responsible. They
seek the democratic means to raise issues of broad economic,
social and constitutional importance and ensure those issues most
important to them are placed on the legislative agenda.
Similarly the final decision on key issues of significant impact to
our future must be given to the electors. The enactment of the bill
will strengthen democracy in the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to move a
motion concerning reference of supplementary estimates to
standing committees of the House.
As there is a lengthy list attached to the motion, if it is agreeable
to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it
had been read.
The Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Estimates be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as
follows:
[
Editor's note: the list referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 15b, 35b and 36b
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1b, 3b and 10b
To the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, L21b, 25b, 40b, 55b, 65b, 75b, 105b and
135b
To the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Citizenship and Immigration, Votes 1b, 2b, 10b and 15b
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Environment, Votes 1b and 10b
Privy Council, Vote 30b
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 1b and 40b
National Revenue, Votes 1b, 5b and 10b
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1b, 2b and 3b
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Foreign Affairs, Votes 10b, 11b, 15b, 20b and 21b
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations
Canadian Heritage, Vote 130b
Governor General, Vote 1b
Parliament, Vote 1b
Privy Council, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b and 10b
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 5b, 14b, 15b and 20b
Treasury Board, Votes 1b and 10b
To the Standing Committee on Health
Health, Votes 10b, 25b and 30b
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
Human Resources Development, Votes 1b, 6b, 15b, 25b and 40b
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities
Justice, Vote 21b
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Industry, Votes 1b, 2b, 21b, 25b, 26b, 40b, 50b, 70b, 90b, 100b, 105b, 110b and
120b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Justice, Votes 1b, 5b, 15b and 20b
Solicitor General, Votes 1b, 30b and 35b
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 1b, 5b and 10b
Veterans Affairs, Vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Natural Resources, Votes 1b, 10b, 20b and 25b
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 10b, 20b, 34b, 38b and 39b
(Motion agreed to.)
8514
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 57th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the
House today be concurred in.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present a petition to the House signed by dozens of
my constituents from St. Catharines.
The petitioners call our attention to the devastating impact
tobacco has on the health of Canadians, in particular the negative
impact of tobacco on young people.
Furthermore the petitioners state their support for the federal
government implementing its tobacco control legislation, Bill
C-71, and urge the federal government to ensure complete passage
of the bill prior to an election call.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have three sets of petitions to present. Two of the petitions concern
the state of the highways and the concern demonstrated by several
people of British Columbia.
The first set of petitions asks that Parliament not increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its
current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national
highways.
The second set of petitions calls upon Parliament to urge the
federal government to join with provincial governments to make
the national highway system upgrading possible.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the third petition concerns literacy.
The petitioners request that all levels of government demonstrate
their support for education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax
on reading materials.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise to present several petitions today. The first one is signed by
people in my riding of Fraser Valley East.
They call upon Parliament not to approve the use of the abortion
drug RU-486 in Canada.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from people who are still upset about the
closing of CFB Chilliwack.
They have noted a variety of logical reasons to keep some
semblance of that base open.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the third petition calls for the abolition of all nuclear weapons and
encourages the federal government to work toward that end.
(1515 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this petition bears 881 names, for a total of more than 30,000
names that I have presented on the subject of personal injury
crimes and sexual offences, especially involving children.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to do several things to
protect our children and those most vulnerable in society, including
a national registry of fingerprints, amendments to the Criminal
Records Act to prohibit pardons for those convicted of sex
offences, and to prohibit for life all those convicted of sex offences
against children from holding positions of trust and responsibility.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I wish to
present to Parliament a petition signed by 56 of my constituents.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to present three petitions.
8515
The first petition is signed by 25 constituents who call upon
Parliament to proceed immediately with amendments to the
Criminal Code to ensure that a sentence given to anyone convicted
of impaired driving causing death would carry a minimum
sentence of seven years and a maximum of fourteen.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition calls upon the House to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which would set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
The petition is signed by 300 residents of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the final petition I wish to present calls upon Parliament to
legalize cannabis.
The petition is signed by over 100 constituents of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present two
petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.
The first group of petitioners request that the federal government
join with the provincial governments to make the national highway
system upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition concerns age of consent laws.
The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18
years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 175
residents of my riding.
The petitioners call upon the government to make certain
amendments to the Bank Act to give consumers greater rights and
information with respect to the operation of Canadian banks.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition from the residents of Peterborough riding concerned
about the closing of the Indian Specific Claims Commission at the
end of this month.
The petitioners feel the commission is extremely important for
dealing fairly with aboriginal land claims. They request that
Parliament not allow the current employees of the Indian Specific
Claims Commission to close down their place of employment.
As taxpayers and registered voters the petitioners feel this
important entity should continue to operate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
members of the Canadian Automobile Association from the
Quebec City area remind us that a large part of the Canadian
highway system is substandard. Therefore, the petitioners call on
Parliament to press the federal government to work with the
provinces to ensure our national highway system is upgraded.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6) it is my pleasure to
introduce in the House today a petition from residents of Prince
George.
They note that the federal excise tax on gasoline has increased by
566 per cent over the last 10 years and that the federal government
reinvests in highways less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament not raise fuel
taxes again and that the government dedicate revenue from fuel
taxes to rebuild Canada's crumbling highways.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4 and 92.
[Text]
Question No. 4-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
Since the passage of the gun storage laws in Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of
Canada, how many incidents have there been where firearms have been stolen from
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, from Provincial Police Forces, from Municipal
Police Forces, from individual police officers, from military establishments and from
members of the armed forces in Canada, and for each incident include the date,
description and details of each of these incidents complete with the results of the
investigation, and with respect to each incident, advise (a) whether the incident was a
violation of Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and (b) whether charges
were laid and if not, why not?
8516
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed
by the Solicitor General of Canada and the Department of National
Defence as follows.
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, RCMP
a) Following is the list of incidents where firearms have been
stolen from RCMP establishments and from members of the
RCMP in Canada for the period 1993 to 1997:
1. ``A'' DIVISION-95 Sep 07: An RCMP service revolver was
stolen from a member's residence. The gun was properly stored.
The stolen gun has not been recovered and no charges have been
laid.
2. ``B'' DIVISION-97 Jan 16: An RCMP service revolver was
stolen from the locked trunk of a locked unmarked police vehicle.
The theft is being investigated by the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary and the investigation is ongoing at the present time.
The firearm has not been recovered.
3. ``C'' DIVISION-1993: An RCMP firearm went missing
during a move in 1993. The weapon was recovered. No further
details are available as the relevant file has since been destroyed.
4. ``D'' DIVISION-96 Nov 14: An RCMP gun and two clips
were stolen from a duffle bag which was in a locked van in
downtown Winnipeg. The theft occurred in Winnipeg Police
jurisdiction and has been investigated with negative results. The
items still have not been recovered. No charges have been laid.
5. ``E'' DIVISION-Apr 1993: A member reported his firearm
missing from his personal effects and it still has not been
recovered. No charges have been laid.
6. ``E'' DIVISION-Sep 1996: A member's service revolver
was stolen from his residence. The firearm has not been recovered.
charges have not been laid.
7. ``F'' DIVISION-93 Mar 27: A member's service revolver
was stolen from a locked steel cabinet in his residence during the
course of a Break and Enter while the member was away on leave.
The revolver has not been recovered and no charges were laid.
8. ``H'' DIVISION-93 Aug 05/06: A member's service
revolver was stolen from his residence while he was away on leave
and has not been recovered. No charges were laid.
9. ``H'' DIVISION-93 Dec 17: A member's service revolver
was stolen from his vehicle while it was parked at CFB Halifax.
The gun has not been recovered and no charges were laid.
10. ``H'' DIVISION-94 Apr 21: A revolver was stolen from a
briefcase which was left inside the locked trunk of a police vehicle.
The revolver was recovered one month later when it was purchased
by a Halifax Police Department informant and it was returned to
the RCMP.
11. ``J'' DIVISION-95 Dec 23: An RCMP 9mm was stolen
from a member's private residence in the city of Moncton, N.B.
The theft was investigated by Moncton Police Department and the
firearm has not been recovered.
12. ``J'' DIVISION-96 Nov 03: An RCMP 9mm was stolen
from a member's residence in Tracadie-Sheila, N.B. The theft was
investigated by the Tracadie-Sheila Police Department and the
firearm was recovered and charges were laid.
13. ``J'' DIVISION-96 Nov 07: An RCMP 9mm was stolen
from a member's private residence in Moncton, N.B. The theft was
investigated by Moncton Police Department and the firearm has
not been recovered.
14. ``K'' DIVISION-93 Jun 24: Extra firearms were required
for training and stored overnight at a gun club within the City of
Edmonton where the training was being conducted. The weapons
were secured in a vault. When the weapons were retrieved the next
day, it was discovered that one service revolver had been stolen.
The weapon remains unrecovered. No charges have been laid.
15. ``K'' DIVISION-96 Aug 17: A member's service revolver
was stolen from a private residence during a Break and Enter. The
revolver has been recovered and investigation for unsafe storage of
a firearm is currently ongoing.
16. ``K'' DIVISION-95 Sep 20: A member's RCMP revolver
was reported missing. The details of this case are not available at
this time as an investigation is ongoing.
17. ``O'' DIVISION-95 Jun 17: A member's revolver sank to
the bottom of a lake while the member was on routine patrol on
Lake Nippissing. The revolver has not been recovered. No charges
have been laid.
18. ``O'' DIVISION-95 Aug 16/18: A member's service pistol
was stolen from his residence during the course of a Break and
Enter. The service pistol was stored properly at the time of the
theft. The pistol was later returned by the thieves who threw the
pistol into the member's backyard. No charges have been laid.
19. ``DEPOT'' DIVISION-An RCMP pistol was either lost or
stolen approximately two years ago. Further details are
unavailable.
20. ``DEPOT'' DIVISION-A recent incident involves an
RCMP S&W 5946 pistol which was lost/stolen while in transit with
a courier company. An investigation is being conducted with
respect to this incident.
b) According to Section 3(1)d) of the Regulations pertaining to
Part III of the Criminal Code, the RCMP is exempt from the
storage regulations subject to subsection 3(3) of the same
Regulations. Section 3(3) states that the exemption applies when
firearms are stored in a dwelling house or permission is given by a
supervisor.
8517
The RCMP published clear operational directives stating that
its members are responsible for the use, safety and storage of their
firearms at all times. Any neglect of these directives is considered
a breach of the Regulations and is an offence under Section 86(3)
of the Criminal Code. When the firearm of a member of the RCMP
is lost or stolen, the assessment of the situation includes a decision
as to whether or not Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada
has been breached.
With respect to these types of incidents as they pertain to
provincial and municipal police forces or police officers, the
RCMP's information is very limited. Since other police forces are
not required to report to the RCMP incidents of loss or theft of their
firearms, the RCMP's Operational Reporting System does not
accurately provide information in this regard.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, DND
a) Following is the list of incidents where firearms have been
stolen from military establishments and from members of the
Armed Forces in Canada for the period 1993 to 1996:
1. Incident DS-0040-28 Aug 93: A 32 calibre was stolen from a
hotel room in which the service member was staying. Pistol was
being used for an escort of a large sum of money. An investigation
was conducted and the firearm was recovered.
2. Incident DS-0041-17 Dec 93: A 38 calibre pistol was
stolen from RCMP officer's car while parked at CFB Halifax. An
investigation was conducted and the firearm was not recovered.
3. Incident DS-0517-16 Apr 94: Two 22 calibre rifles were
stolen during a Break and Enter from a Cadet Corps storage area.
An investigation was conducted and the firearms were not
recovered.
4. Incident DS-3212-24 Jul 94: Two 177 calibre air pellet rifles
were stolen during a Break and Enter from a Cadet Corps weapons
locker. An investigation was conducted and the firearms were not
recovered.
5. Incident DS-1989-26 Sep 94: Two 22 calibre rifles and a 177
calibre air pellet rifle were stolen from a Cadet Corps storage area.
An investigation was conducted and the firearms were recovered.
6. Incident DS-1400-26 Jul 95: A Luger pistol was stolen from
a secure display cabinet within an Armoury. An investigation was
conducted and the firearm was not recovered.
7. Incident DS-1164-21 May 95: A Smith and Wesson 32
calibre was recovered by Winnipeg City Police. The hand gun had
been stolen from a Permanent Married Quarter at CFB Shilo
without the owner's knowledge. Weapon was stored in accordance
with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. An investigation was
conducted and the firearm was recovered. No charges were laid.
8. Incident DS-0525-11 Feb 95: A 410 shogun and a
Winchester 30-30 rifle were stolen during a Break and Enter at a
Permanent Married Quarter at CFB Halifax. Weapons were stored
in accordance with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. An
investigation was conducted and the firearms were not recovered.
No charges were laid.
9. Incident DS-1916-21 Dec 94: A 22, a 357, and a 9mm pistol
were stolen from a Permanent Married Quarter at CFB Halifax
during a Break and Enter. Weapons were stored in accordance with
Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. An investigation was
conducted and the firearms were not recovered. No charges were
laid.
b) Since the Canadian Forces are exempt from Section 86(3) of
the Criminal Code of Canada, the above incidents (1) through (6)
cannot be considered violations of that legislation and therefore,
charges were not laid. Incidents (7), (8) and (9) were thefts from
private residences in which the weapons were stored in accordance
with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code.
Question No. 92-Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):
What is the total cost to the Government of Canada of the operation of the
Investment Canada Act including the cost of any publications thereunder and in
what year prior to 1996 was a decision rendered preventing the take over of a
Canadian firm by a foreign investor?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister Responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): The
estimated cost of administering the Investment Canada Act in
fiscal year 1996/97 is $788,000.
The Investment Canada Act came into force on June 30, 1985.
Since that time, no investment proposal submitted under the act has
been disallowed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if Question No. 18 could be made an Order for Return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 80-Mr. Bergeron:
With regard to the total budget for the Department of Natural Resources, and for
each year since the 1987 fiscal year: (a) how much (in actual figures) and what
proportion (in percentages) of its research and development budgets have been
invested in Quebec, (b) how much and what percentage have been invested in Ontario
(including the Ontario side of the national capital region and excluding the Quebec side
of the national capital region), (c) what economic spin-off effects have there been from
8518
the Candu reactors in Quebec, (d) what economic spin-off effects have there been in
Ontario, and (e) what financial commitment has the department made to the neutrino
detection project in Ontario, the Triumph project in British Columbia and to Chalk
River, Ontario?
Return tabled.
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8518
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and
of Motions Nos. 11 and 12.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Wetaskiwin had four minutes remaining.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, since
I am not sure how many points I covered when I last spoke I will
recap. I also want to raise a point made during question period by
the minister of agriculture. In his reply to a question by a member
of the NDP, the minister said that if the Saskatchewan government
would amend its successor rights it would go a long way to solving
the problem with the short line railways and their buyers.
It is a rather strange stance for the minister of agriculture to take
when his government is suggesting we should have successor rights
in the airline industry. It is strange he suggested that it should not
be the same in the railroad industry. We in the Reform Party
suggest the section of Bill C-66 that deals with successor rights
should be eliminated.
Why should it be eliminated from the bill? We think it
complicates things. It does not do what the minister has set out to
do, that is to create a balance. It is making legislation for
legislation's sake. It is not accomplishing anything.
We also notice the government's amendment to limit the
succession rights to the airline securities department. Does it
really? Further on we recognize that the governor in council, the
cabinet in other words, has the authority to make regulations
designating that any other service in any industry would have to
comply with the same successor rights provisions. For those
reasons we would very much like to see the successor rights portion
of the bill removed.
Further, the Sims report from which most of the bill is drafted
did not report on the subject. It did not have any consultation with
the airlines, the industries or the airports in terms of successor
rights.
This is rather ill thought out legislation. It is legislation that may
have been brought in to appease certain groups. It is not part of the
solution but could be exactly the opposite. It could be part of the
problem.
I urge all members of the House to reconsider the portion of the
bill that deals with successor rights, specifically clause 47.3 of Bill
C-66, and to support the Reform amendment to delete the clause.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
strongly object to the amendments put forward by the so-called
Reform Party because the whole issue of successive contracts or
previous employers is one of those that cause the most controversy,
problems and confusion in labour relations. It is always an
extremely sensitive issue.
(1525)
Section 47.3 improves the situation without going as far as the
unions would have wanted. This provision is a rather limited
improvement. It is important to mention what it states, for the
benefit of our listeners. This provision requires an employer who
succeeds a previous contractor as the provider of certain services in
the air transportation industry to pay his employees as much as the
employees of the previous contractor were entitled to.
We must understand that this issue of contracting out is a very
sensitive one and that the intent of the legislation is to preserve a
minimum that is unacceptable. It goes without saying that a union
always wants to protect its members' jobs. In this case, again in an
attempt to control damage, it is provided that the provider of
services who succeeds a previous contractor must pay at least equal
remuneration.
This is a new provision which seeks to protect the remuneration
of unionized workers who might have been adversely affected
8519
following the loss of a contract by their employer. The provision
also seeks to ensure that the people working for the supplier who is
awarded the contract receive decent wages. It has no impact on the
right of a supplier to contract out, provided that the contractors
comply with the compensation plan.
While we feel the act does not go far enough, it is nevertheless
an improvement and we will strongly oppose the Reform
amendment to clause 47.3.
There is also clause 43 amending section 97(a) of the code. New
obligations are imposed, including, in clause 47.3, the obligation,
for an employer who succeeds a previous contractor, to pay equal
remuneration to his employees. The employer must also uphold the
conditions of employment while waiting for the board's decision
regarding the services to be maintained, preserve the conditions of
employment of those employees required to work during a work
stoppage to maintain services, and reinstate employees instead of
keeping replacement workers. This improvement seeks to make
labour relations more civilized. Therefore, we will strongly oppose
the amendment tabled by the Reform Party.
The two other amendments also target succession rights. We
want to emphasize the fact that this is a mistake. The hon. member
must realize that this would not solve anything. It is not true that it
would enable contractors to operate with total freedom. Rather, it
would create conditions where workers and unions would have no
choice but to fight and to use every means of pressure available to
them.
(1530)
Let us not forget that the Reform Party's next to last amendment
targets a provision already included in a 1996 act, which also
maintained certain rights for workers.
For all these reasons, we are asking the government not to
support the amendments proposed by the Reform Party. I would
like to support these amendments but, unfortunately, their content
as well as the arguments raised by the Reform member give me no
choice but to disagree with them.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, clause 24 of Bill C-66 adds a
provision to the Canada Labour Code which would require an
employer succeeding another as the provider of certain services to
the air transport industry to pay employees remuneration not less
than that which the employees of the previous contract were
entitled to receive under the terms of a collective agreement. On
the recommendation of the Minister of Labour the governor in
council can extend the application of this provision to other
industries.
The Reform Party has put forward Motion No. 11 to remove this
requirement from Bill C-66. This provision has been included in
the bill to address important labour relations matters which not
only affect workers in this sector but also impact on the safety of
the flying public.
Rather than remove the provision, we are proposing MotionNo. 12 to amend it to address some legitimate concerns which have
been raised by representatives in the air transportation sector with
respect to its current scope. The amendment we wish to make to
clause 24 would limit the immediate application of this provision
to employers providing airport security screening services.
We ask members of the House to approve this amendment as it
will promote competition based on efficiency gains and enable
contractors with unionized employees to answer tender calls;
reduce staff turnover and ensure that the personnel assigned to the
protection of the flying public have the proper training experience;
protect the remuneration of unionized workers who can be
penalized when their employer loses a service contract.
What this provision does not do is limit the right of employers in
the air transportation sector or any other sector to contract for
services. As is presently case the right to contract out services
would remain subject to the terms of any collective agreement to
which the employer is party. The requirement to maintain
remuneration levels would only apply to successor contractors.
At present when a business subject to the Canada Labour Code
decides to change contractors at the expiration of a service contract
there is nothing in the code that protects the employees of that
contractor. Consequently, if those employees were unionized and it
succeeded in entering into a collective agreement they often lose
the monetary benefits they have negotiated and in some cases they
lose their jobs. As well, the employees of the employer that wins
the service contract often have poor wage conditions.
We recognize that the air transport industry has a legitimate
interest in containing costs and staying competitive. Still, the
Canadian air transport industry has itself recognized that the
turnover of employees assigned to security service contracts has a
negative impact on its ability to maintain a skilled experienced
work force. Because of problems caused by the practice of
awarding successive contracts for services for security services in
the air transport sector, the Department of Transport in its capacity
as administrator of major airports reached an agreement with the
Canadian airlines in 1988. Under the terms of the agreement the
airlines were required to include in contracts for preboard security
screening services a clause guaranteeing the employees wages and
benefits would be maintained if the level provided for in the
contract had existed before the call of tenders.
This agreement which was revised in 1992 resulted in a reduced
turnover rate for security personnel, improved working conditions
and a better security screening system. It is this policy which the
bill now seeks to codify. The Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development heard the submissions made by the Air
Transport Association of Canada which raised concerns about the
8520
new obligations included in the bill. In the association's view since
the agreement entered into with the Department of Transport in
1988 solved the problems associated with tender calls for security
services, it would be pointless and unwarranted to formalize the
agreement as proposed in section 47(3).
(1535)
Although we commend the airlines for their co-operation in
honouring the agreement of the Department of Transport since
1988, we must not lose sight of the fact that some airports have not
been administered by the Department of Transport for a few years
now. Their numbers are growing.
As a result, Transport Canada has less direct influence to ensure
that this policy is respected. With the proposed amendment to
clause 24, the provision will apply in the immediate term only to
security screening services.
This will codify the contractual obligations that air transport
employers have been honouring for eight years and have been
recognized as a reasonable method of correcting the problems
associated with contract free tendering for security services.
The proposed amendment addresses the concerns raised by the
TAC about the advisability of applying this provision to other
services contracted out by its members such as fuelling and ground
services.
In the association's view, applying this provision to such
services could cause more labour relations problems than it would
solve. It is usually the airlines that provide these services with the
help of unionized personnel.
In view of the submissions made to the committee and the
objectives of this provision we are proposing to limit its application
to security screening services.
However, the governor in council will retain authority to extend
the application of this section to other services and other industries
under federal jurisdiction on the recommendation of the Minister
of Labour if problems similar to those which arose as a result of
changes of contractors providing preboard security screening
services in the airport sector occur.
I urge members to support the government motion and retain the
requirement in clause 24 of the bill but with a restricted
application. This will ensure that workers in the security screening
sector are treated with equity. With respect to the remuneration, it
will also contribute to ensuring the safety of the flying public.
In addition, there will be a mechanism available to address
problems should they arise in other sectors.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred. The result of the vote shall
apply as well to Motions Nos. 41 and 51.
We shall now move on to the motions in Group No. 5, which
includes Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 36.
[English]
Mr. Proud: Madam Speaker, did you call Motion No. 12?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We just did
Group No. 4, which included Motion No. 12. We are now on Group
No. 5, Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 36.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, given that the amendments we
are considering were tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, I thought that
we were entitled to speak first.
(1540 )
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will clarify
the situation on the motions. In Group No. 4, a vote on MotionNo. 11 applies to Motions Nos. 41 and 51. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 11 obviates the necessity of the question being put on
Motion No. 12. On the other hand, a negative vote on MotionNo. 11 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 12. So we
have to wait for the result on Motion No. 11.
We will now proceed to Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 13, 14 and
36.
8521
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 19 the following new
Clause:
``25.1 Section 52 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection
(3):
(3.1) The rationale for the change mentioned in paragraph (3)(c) shall include an
analysis of the cost of the change, the benefits expected of the change, the effect on
the organization of the work place and the proposed time schedule for
implementation.
(3.2) The employer shall give the bargaining agent sufficient time to enable the
bargaining agent to assess the information provided and shall supply any additional
information and technological and financial explanation that the bargaining agent
reasonably requests to facilitate the assessment.
(3.3) No alteration may be made to the terms and conditions or security of
employment of an employee as a result of technological change unless the employer
has complied with this section and an agreement on the alteration has been reached
between the bargaining agent and the employer.''
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 21 the following new
Clause:
``29.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 68:
68.1 If a collective agreement expires and no new agreement has been made
between the employer and the bargaining agent, the terms and conditions in the
expired agreement shall continue to apply to the employees in the bargaining unit
until a new agreement has been made.''
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 32 with the
following:
``(c) expresses a personal point of view, other than during the period an application
for certification as a bargaining agent is being determined by the Board pursuant to
sections 28 to 47, so''
He said: Madam Speaker, Group No. 5 refers to three types of
amendments. The first consideration relates to technological
change, the second to a clause inspired by the situation in Quebec,
which stipulates that a collective agreement will continue to apply
until a new one has been signed. The third concerns non-targeted
workers.
I would like to begin by addressing technological change. As you
know, one of the paradoxes of the process we have experienced is
that the government claims to have modernized the Canada Labour
Code without addressing the thorny and delicate question of
technological change. We are well aware that technological change
impacts very heavily on the way work is organized.
I would like to give an example close to my heart, which relates
to Hochelaga--Maisonneuve and, by that very fact, I would like to
dedicate this example to the people in my community. Some years
ago, when I was starting to get interested in politics, there were in
my neighbourhood what were termed skilled labourers: machinists,
a highly respected job. I am sure the hon. member for Mercier will
recall that they were part of what was called the aristocracy of
labourers.
Thanks to a totally new production process, a very significant
change took place; a punched tape made it possible to change the
organization of the work totally, which had an effect on the workers
that were required.
What the Bloc Quebecois amendment proposes is to allow the
unions the opportunity of having a say on how technological
change will be implemented in the work place. The employer is
required to give reasonable notice, after which it is stated that, if
agreement is not reached on the manner in which technological
change is to be implemented, this could go right up to the right to
strike.
Technological change is important, because it is estimated that
the life cycle of equipment in certain industries on the leading edge
of technology may not exceed five years. Associated with these life
cycles are major changes in terms of manufacturing processes.
It is hard to understand why the government remained silent on
such a topical issue. Especially since the minister himself had put
in place a round table, a discussion forum where he was told what
lay ahead and what the basic trends were both in the retail trade and
in the service sector. In spite of it all, the minister did not say a
word on such a major issue.
Before I get to our proposal, I would like to share with you, if I
may, what a very important central labour body in Quebec told the
committee. I am referring, of course, to the CSN. I want you to
know what its representatives made us realize in committee.
(1545)
According to the CSN, only after a negotiated settlement
providing for the right to strike in the event of a dispute has been
reached should the provisions relating to technological change be
implemented in the workplace. The CSN analysis is premised on
the idea that the potential for a dispute exists and that this in itself
is important enough to be considered an element in the bargaining
process that could eventually lead to the exercise of the right to
strike.
The definition of ``technological change'' should be broad
enough to encompass all modern technology. It should not be
defined in minute detail, but it should be clear what is meant by
technological change.
8522
After a reasonable time has elapsed-this is a legal provision
found in many bills-the information provided to the union should
deal with-that is why it is important to be very clear about the
type of information required-all economic, technical and
organizational aspects of the employer's plans, including a detailed
description of the project, a cost-benefit analysis, the positions
affected, a manpower assessment, the impact on work organization,
and an implementation schedule.
I hope this brief excerpt from a much longer submission will
convince you, Madam Speaker, and the parliamentary secretary,
that this is an amendment worth considering and that the
government should support it.
I want to discuss another issue before giving the floor to a
colleague. Madam Speaker-and I know you have a keen interest
in this issue-there is a labour code in Quebec, as in other
provinces, but our province has always been something of a
pioneer. Quebec never does things by halves. Get ready because, in
the future, a fundamental change will take place. But this is not the
time to discuss it.
I want to call the house's attention to section 59 of the Quebec
labour code. If my information is accurate, section 59 provides
what I would call, based on my old notions of law, an evergreen
clause. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Mercier will let
me say this, because she is much more familiar than I am with
labour law, but it seems to me there is something tacit in what is
being proposed, something akin to an evergreen clause.
What does this mean? It means that when negotiations are
undertaken-and later on we will elaborate on the process
proposed by the minister-since currently there is no provision in
the Canada Labour Code similar to the one in section 59 of the
Quebec labour code, and since the government did not want to
include such a provision, workers could be deprived of the
protection afforded by the evergreen clause, which provides that a
collective agreement is deemed to be in effect until a new one,
hopefully a negotiated one, comes into effect.
This is what our proposed amendments seek to provide. These
provisions were suggested by a number of witnesses, including the
CSN. I fail to see how the government could reject these
amendments. One would have a hard time finding arguments
against these very sound proposals.
This concludes my explanation. I am very optimistic that the
government will support our amendments.
(1550)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
group includes three important motions by the Bloc Quebecois.
Even if the government is not in agreement with the wording as
given, it should at least try to plug some rather sizable holes in the
Canada Labour Code.
The first is the absence of provisions regarding the opportunity
and the right to negotiate technological change. My colleague, the
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, has given us a striking
example of what happened in a company whose workers possessed
a highly sought after skill, but a skill that became almost worthless
following a technological change. This has happened extremely
often and will happen increasingly in the future, given the pace of
technological change.
Except that, in a business, there is nothing to prevent workers
from being consulted about the introduction of new technologies,
from being involved, and those who would otherwise be affected,
possibly even laid off, from being protected.
Companies that have decided to involve workers in the
introduction of technological change have always come out ahead.
How many times has extremely costly equipment been bought
without consulting workers, only to turn out to be ill adapted, to
lead to serious health and safety problems in the workplace, with
the result that it was necessary to make adjustments and repairs that
were never satisfactory in the end? This has happened time and
time again.
So responsible companies, those with experience, know that this
is in their interest. I could name several in Montreal's east end who
involved the union when introducing technological change, using a
bargaining approach, without its being formal bargaining as
provided under the code.
What we would expect of the government, which claims to want
to modernize the Canada Labour Code, is for it to focus attention
on this extremely important matter, for it to help businesses to be
proactive, for it to use its judgment and experience, in order to
indicate to them that they ought to negotiate the introduction of
technological change with the union, when there is one, and when
such change could result in a strike. The least that ought to be done
is to ensure that there is negotiation. This is not only in the
workers' best interests, but in the employer's as well.
We find the bill highly unsatisfactory in this area, as well as
many others. In fact, I really wonder if this is a matter of
modernizing the Canada Labour Code; to my mind, it is more of a
process to make labour relations more rigid, at a time when they
need to be made more flexible.
The second motion by the Bloc Quebecois is to ensure that there
is not what is called in the jargon ``a legal vacuum''. A legal
vacuum is a situation that is quite alarming for unionized workers
who have the right to strike or who go out on strike and no longer
have any protection whatsoever under their former collective
agreement. In a legal vacuum of this type, a company could, for
instance, lay people off, and they would have no defence against it.
There will, of course, be an attempt to negotiate their rehiring in
the back to work protocol, but this simply further complicates
negotiations, as well as the settlement and the end of the strike.
Thus, there are more opportunities for the law of the jungle to
8523
govern the parties' actions. The purpose of the Canada Labour
Code is to ensure that relations are clearly set out. A legal vacuum
means reversion to the law of the jungle.
(1555)
Naturally, each party tries to make use of this law of the jungle,
according to its strength. But how much better would it be if the
code itself were to provide, in some way, for the old collective
agreement to be carried over until a new one replaced it so as to
avoid a legal vacuum. In Quebec, the option exists, and, in the
public sector, there is no legislative gap whatsoever.
Finally, the third motion of the Bloc is aimed at describing the
new freedom. Some will say that the new code gives employers an
opportunity to talk to their employees, as defined in the
jurisprudence of the Canada board. We, however, are very
concerned that this provision does not exclude the period in which
an application is made for certification.
This definition or attempt to determine the relationship between
employer and employee in terms of information, must exclude the
period of the application for certification. I hope the secretary of
state will heed my arguments. It is essential that the application
period be excluded. In this period, as we know, words do not have
the same weight, and an employer's silences and gestures can be
pregnant with meaning. Intimidation can take many forms.
We really hope the parliamentary secretary will listen to our
arguments and not introduce more problems in labour relations,
where there are already enough problems.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House to support the motions of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-66,
an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. The first motion
concerns renewal of the previous collective agreement until the
new agreement is signed.
This provision did not exist before in Quebec, and this certainly
caused a lot of problems. We were faced with a legal vacuum. Do
the employer's management rights apply during this interval? Can
the employer fire employees without observing the collective
agreement? Finally, thanks to the labour movement's demands, the
labour code was amended.
In Quebec today, there is a provision for tacit renewal of a
collective agreement until the new agreement is signed and comes
into effect. After expiry of the previous collective agreement, it can
sometimes take a long time, months and even years, before the new
agreement is signed. There must be some degree of stability in
labour relations during that time.
The second motion of the Bloc Quebecois concerns
technological change. This is a very important question. During the
past 20 or 30 years, we have seen spectacular technological
changes taking place in business and industry. Of course,
employees want to have some control over the technological
changes that in most cases affect them to a very considerable
extent. On the other hand, employers want to be in full control of
these changes.
(1600)
I agree with the request by the Bloc Quebecois that unions be
given reasonable notice before such changes are introduced.
Sometimes when technological change occurs, and this has been
the case in the past 20 or 30 years, dozens and even hundreds of
people have been laid off. People will lose their jobs because new
equipment has been purchased and new production processes are
being introduced.
Usually when a collective agreement is signed, labour relations
and terms and conditions of employment remain stable until the
new agreement is negotiated. Most labour codes provide that
technological changes can be negotiated even if the collective
agreement has yet to expire.
The United States has legal provisions that are sometimes very
advanced, and the Canada Labour Code would do well to take a leaf
from this legislation. The important thing is to associate workers
with the introduction of these changes. Sometimes the changes do
not work because they were introduced unilaterally by the
employer without the consent of and without prior notice to the
workers.
As the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve said earlier,
the CNTU submitted a brief which contains excellent
recommendations in this respect. Prior notice should be given
before proceeding with such changes. It is imperative to negotiate.
If an agreement is reached, the changes may proceed, but if not, the
parties may avail themselves of their right to strike or lock out. It is
equally important to agree on the concept of technological change
because definitions vary in some labour codes.
We need a definition that is sufficiently broad to cover
fundamental technological changes. A notice of technological
change must state all the necessary information to be assessed by
the unions and the workers, with detailed explanations. This
information must include the costs, the impact, especially on the
employees, as well as a schedule. This is why I totally agree with
the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.
Since I still have a few minutes left, I would like to briefly
mention a problem that we have in my riding. I am referring to
Zellers, which announced last week that it will be closing its
distribution centre in Montreal North and laying off 379 workers.
This is a tragedy for Montreal North, where a third of the
8524
population is already unemployed. Poverty in my riding is at a
very high level.
Zellers has made huge profits. Along with its parent company,
the Bay, its sales exceeded $1 billion in 1995. Zellers now wants to
close because the building is too old. In recent years, Zellers has
introduced technological changes which have been accepted and
implemented by the unions. It now claims that the building is too
old. Most of these jobs will go to Ontario, to Scarborough in
particular. This closing will generate incredible suffering.
(1605)
I think the federal government certainly bears some
responsibility for this closing. The Liberal government was elected
on a promise that it would create jobs, jobs, jobs. Now, jobs are
eliminated everywhere, at Greenberg's, at Steinberg's last year, at
Eaton's and now at Zellers.
I call on the Minister of Industry to try to convince this company
to change its decision and remain in activity in Montreal North. I
also plead with the President of the Treasury Board, who pays
regular visits to Quebec to tell people that this is the government
that created the greatest number of jobs, even if this is not the case
at all. There is more unemployment today than under the
Conservative government.
Above all, I call on the Minister of Labour, who introduced this
Bill C-66 in the House. His riding is next to my riding of Bourassa.
He represents the riding of Saint-Léonard and comes over in my
riding to play politics, to support the Liberal candidate. He should
also take care of problems like job creation and the closing of
Zellers in Montreal North. This is a human tragedy. We should all
make efforts to ensure that Zellers remains in activity in Montreal
North and, most of all, to stop the transfer of jobs from Quebec to
Ontario.
I think that is what the federal government says, especially
today, as the President of the Treasury Board accused us of creating
instability. It is the federal government that is really creating
instability, when it says that there is a separatist in Quebec and that
it discourages entrepreneurs. This is not true. There is a lot of
instability in Korea, but this country has never had as much foreign
investment. The same thing is true for China. In China, there are
human rights violations, but everybody wants to invest in China.
This is an excuse. I urge the federal government to get involved
in these matters to try to keep Zellers in Montreal North.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to get back to the topic, the official
opposition put forward Motion No. 13, as we heard earlier, in order
to amend the process provided in the code for dealing with
technological changes introduced while a collective agreement is
in force.
One of the amendments proposed would prohibit the employer
from implementing the technological changes until an agreement is
reached with the union. The process currently provided in the
Canada Labour Code applies only when the parties have not
included in their collective agreement their own process for dealing
with the impact of technological changes on the job security of
bargaining unit employees.
Under the statutory process, if the employer and the trade union
are unable to agree on the implementation of the proposed changes,
the union may ask the board for authorization to serve notice to
bargain for the purpose of revising relevant provisions of the
collective agreement.
Where such an application is made to the board, the employer
may not implement the changes until the board either rejects the
application, or an agreement is reached through the collective
bargaining process, or the right to strike, or the right to lockout is
acquired.
The collective bargaining context has changed since the
technological change provisions were first introduced in 1973. At
the time, few if any collective agreements included mechanisms to
address the impact of technological changes on job security. Today
unions and employers routinely include their own mechanisms in
their collective agreements designed to address significant changes
in the workplace which impact on the job security of bargaining
unit employees.
This underlines the party's preference to deal with such changes
through processes they design themselves. This also explains why
the Sims task force, in reviewing the current technological change
provisions in the code, concluded that no statutory changes were
needed.
Motion No. 14, the freeze on terms and conditions, put forward
by the official opposition, would basically prohibit the employer
from changing the terms and conditions of an expired collective
agreement after the right to strike and lockout had been acquired so
that the terms and conditions would continue to apply until a new
agreement was entered into.
(1610 )
Under the provisions of the code, the terms and conditions of an
expired collective agreement must be maintained during the
negotiation process until the right to strike or a lockout is acquired.
After that point in the bargaining cycle, an employer, subject to the
continuing duty to bargain in good faith, may change terms and
conditions while the employees are entitled to initiate strike action.
The Simms task force carefully examined the issue of what is
commonly referred as the freeze period and concluded that an
extension of the statutory freeze was not needed. The task force
noted that the parties are free to include a bridging provision in
their collective agreement providing for a continuation of terms
8525
and conditions of employment beyond the date strike and lockout
rights are acquired. However, such bridging clauses cannot be used
by an employer to prevent a union from exercising legally acquired
strike rights or by a union to prevent an employer from exercising
legally acquired lockout rights.
Other changes in the bill will maintain terms and conditions for
those employees who will be required to continue working during a
work stoppage in order to maintain those activities that are
necessary to protect public health and safety or to provide services
to grain vessels.
Given the other provisions included in Bill C-66 that will protect
the basic rights of employees on strike or locked out to continue
group insurance coverage and give them access to arbitration for
cases of dismissal or discipline, the extension of the freeze period
up to the date of the conclusion of the new collective agreement
would not represent a fair balance of the competing rights
involved.
The official opposition has submitted Motion No. 36 that would
prohibit employers from expressing their views during the period
when representation rights are being determined by the board.
According to the new paragraph 94(2)(c) which implements the
recommendation of the task force, an employer will be deemed not
to commit an unfair labour practice by expressing its views so long
as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats,
promises or undue influence.
Several provincial labour laws already recognize explicitly the
employers' right to express their views subject to similar
limitations.
Under the current section 94 of the code, it is an unfair labour
practice for an employer to interfere with the formation or
administration of a trade union or the representation of employees
by a trade union. Section 94(2) describes certain permitted
employer actions.
Although section 94(2) provides no explicit exception for
non-coercive employer speech, the law has never been that
employers must remain absolutely silent. Accordingly, the Canada
Labour Relations Board, in interpreting the general prohibition of
employer interference, has implied the concept of free speech and
placed similar restrictions as its provincial counterparts.
Bill C-66 will therefore confirm the Canada Industrial Relations
Board's responsibility to balance the employer's freedom of speech
with the competing employee's freedom of association which are
both guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We believe that the board is in the best position to define the
parameters of employer free speech and the appropriate standard,
taking into account the context in which the speech issue arises and
the nature of the collective bargaining relationship.
We are confident that this new provision will in no way diminish
the union's exclusive right to represent employees and we therefore
ask the members of the House to support it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on a point of order.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the parliamentary
secretary may have unwittingly misled the House. I would like to
make sure there is no misunderstanding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry, but this seems
to be a point for debate, not a point of order. If the hon. member
wants to take part in the debate, I believe he has already done so on
this group, he will be able to join in the discussions when we debate
the next group. If the hon. parliamentary secretary is willing to
answer a question, he might do so with the House's permission, but
this will require unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to put a
question to the parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1615)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): I felt
some disbelief on your part Mr. Speaker, but I do want you to know
that I only have friends in this House.
The parliamentary secretary implied that Motion No. 14 moved
by the official opposition, which derives from section 50 of the
Quebec labour code, as I explained, is a clause providing for tacit
reconduction of any collective agreement coming to an end so that
it remains in force until a new agreement is signed. It is also known
as an evergreen clause.
If the interpreters did justice to what the parliamentary secretary
meant, he told us that these provisions already exist in the labour
code and that all collective agreements are deemed to remain in
force until such time as a new agreement comes into effect.
Is the parliamentary secretary still saying that the amendment we
proposed is useless because the collective agreement remains in
force and because there already is a tacit reconduction clause?
Would he be willing to table, for the benefit of the official
opposition, the legal opinion which supports this point of view,
because it does not agree with testimony given by witnesses we
heard in committee.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the current provisions of the
code, the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement
8526
must be maintained during the negotiation process or until the right
to strike or lockout is acquired.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
reviewing this group of amendments it seems to me that most of the
information put forward by our colleagues from the Bloc concerns
matters that should be negotiated in a collective agreement.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the old agreement
should stay in place until such time as negotiations break down and
a strike vote or lockout has taken place. I would suggest that it is
best for this to remain as it is. I am not willing to support Motion
No. 14.
Motion No. 13 is something that should be negotiated between
the two interested parties.
In my estimation, Motion No. 36 is very basic. It is about free
speech. Some restrictions have been placed already on employers
concerning what it takes to certify a union and what does not, what
is coercion and what is undue pressure on employees. We must be
very careful not to infringe on the rights of people to free speech
and expression. In any campaign where for the certification or
decertification of a union there will be some lobbying, some
campaigning on behalf of both parties. I think that is natural. To not
state the pros and cons and the possible outcome which could result
is not much different from a political campaign. A scenario has to
be laid out, a position and a plan put forward.
I do not see it being much different in these cases. Most of the
stuff we are talking about in the three amendments are things that
should be negotiated between employer and employee.
(1620)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
We will now debate the motions in Group No. 6.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 25
with the following:
``notice to the employer indicating the date on which''
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 5and 6 on page 26
with the following:
``notice to the trade union indicating the date on which''
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 26
with the following:
8527
``subsection (1) or (2), a new notice need not be given by the trade''
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-66, In Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 44 on page 26
and lines 1 to 17 on page 27.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by
(a) replacing line 19 on page 26 with the following:
``within the previous sixty days or any longer period that may be agreed to in
writing by the trade union and the employer, held a secret''
(b) replacing line 26 on page 26 with the following:
``has, within the previous sixty days or such longer period that may be agreed in
writing by the trade union and the employers' organization, held a''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 36 on page 26.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 44 on page 26.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 27.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 17 on page 27.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-66, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 31 with the
following:
``given pursuant to a provision of this Part, other than subsection 49(1); and''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-66, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 42 on page 31
with the following:
``39. (1) Subsection 89(1) is replaced by the following:
89. (1) No employer shall declare or cause a lockout and no trade union shall
declare or authorize a strike unless the employer or trade union has given notice to
bargain collectively under this Part.
(2) Paragraph 89(2) (b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) the requirement of subsection (1) has been met in respect of the bargaining
unit of which the employee is a member.''
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-66, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 31 with the
following:
``(d) twenty-one days have elapsed after the date''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 33 with the following:
``(d.1) where the requirement of subsection 89(1) has been met, cancel or''
(b) replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 33 with the following:
``(d.2) where the requirement of subsection 89(1) has been met and the''
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 35
with the following:
``was entitled before the requirement of subsection 89(1) was met;''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you realize it, but we are
coming to an extremely crucial and decisive point in today's
debate. Until now, we were tempted to be indulgent and
conciliatory, but I ask the government to take note that we are
entering a period during which we will toughen our stand.
There are limits to what the official opposition can put up with.
We may live in a society of law, we may be civilized people, we
may believe in the virtues of dialogue, but the fact remains that the
government has gone too far. It has gone much farther than what
the official opposition can ever put up with. Here I want to directly
address, through you, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary.
The first irritant, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary
fully understands what we are talking about, is the 72 hour prior
notice, an expression that means something important. Imagine,
this takes the form of an obligation. We do not know where this
came from, because it was not in the old labour code and, to our
knowledge, and we were watchful, this was not asked for by the
witnesses.
Moreover, I saw in the ministerial notes that were communicated
to us that it is claimed to be a consensus in the Sim report. I hope
the government will be able to give us some sources, some
evidence, because we will be in the unfortunate obligation to
question the integrity, I would even say, the honesty of the
government, with regard to its assessment of consensus.
8528
I would like to make a demonstration that will have an premise,
a development and a conclusion, as we were taught in the good
old days of classical college. Starting from the beginning, I will
try to describe the process to you.
Fourth months before the expiry of a collective agreement,
because this is always what we are talking about ultimately, it is
possible to produce a notice, an intent to bargain, which we call a
notice to bargain. In the previous code, it was three months, with
Bill C-66, it is four. Therefore, the parties must bargain. Of course,
we then understand that there either is an agreement or there is not.
(1625)
When there is no agreement on the items discussed in the
bargaining process, the labour minister is first of all notified that
there is no agreement, and then he has a number of courses of
action. However, the major new element-and this was something
the parties had been asking for-is that the conciliation process can
be used only once. This new element means that it will no longer be
possible to have two stages in the conciliation process.
Do you follow, Mr. Speaker? I am trying to give a clear lecture,
and I will to do so till the end.
A notice to bargain is delivered four months before the expiry of
the term of the collective agreement. Either there is an agreement
or there is not. When no agreement can be reached, a notice of
dispute is delivered. After this notice is delivered, sixty days must
go by. This is a maximum, unless, by an exceptional procedure, the
parties agree otherwise. During that period, the minister appoints
an arbitrator, a conciliation commissioner, a conciliation board or
an arbitration board.
Also, a report has always to be tabled. Either there is an
agreement or there is not. The parties are brought together. The
process is well known. The thing that we must keep in mind, as
members of Parliament, is that legislators provide for a sixty day
period as a maximum. Again, this is unless, by an exceptional
procedure, which is not the conventional procedure, the parties
agree on a longer period.
If there is no agreement, and it has happened in the past, in
Parliament, and in the private sector, during negotiations, there is a
14 day cooling off period, after which the union regains the right to
strike. We cannot emphasize enough that strikes carry a price. It is
the last resort, the most meaningful one, and workers do not make
use of it before all the other options have been exhausted.
Nobody will go on strike before all other alternatives have been
exhausted. You are aware of that, Mr. Speaker, even if you tend to
be rather conservative. Everybody in the labour relations
community knows that. Witnesses have reminded us of that.
Unions have the right to strike once the minister has ruled that
the parties are free to exercise their right to strike or to lock out.
During a strike, essential services have to be maintained according
to the board's orders. But we have here a gap in the process,
something that baffles the mind. It is hard to understand the
minister's reasoning. Why is it necessary to have a 72 hour notice
when it is the Minister of Labour himself, the very Sicilian member
for Saint-Léonard, who releases the parties? Parties are free to act
only by ministerial consent. How is this a useful addition to the
process?
The parties told us in committee that, during the period between
the notice of a labour dispute and the time the right to strike is
regained, they want to be able, but not forced, to conduct intensive
negotiations.
There is a number of tools and options the Minister of Labour
can use. For instance, the minister can appoint a conciliation
officer or a mediation officer, or opt for a conciliation board or a
mediation board.
Mr. Speaker, a gentleman as vigilant as you are must have
realized by now that the 72-hour subterfuge, since there are no
other words to describe it, is in fact nothing more than a tactic used
to weaken the relationship of power. We know full well that this
compulsory advance notice gives the opposing party the
opportunity to get organized.
(1630)
Really, it is all in very poor taste. It is incomprehensible. I do not
think I am wrong in saying that the NDP supports the position and
amendment of the Bloc Quebecois. I must say that we are stunned
and dismayed, because, until now, the process had been pretty well
received. First, the negotiation process was shortened, because
there was only one step left, and it made sense to have a little more
time before the expiration notice. Once the notice to bargain was
given, the two parties would start to talk to each other and, if no
agreement was reached, the 60-day period kicked in and that period
of time gave the minister a number of possibilities. In the end, if
still no agreement could be reached, the ultimate option had to be
considered. And that ultimate option was a strike. Previously, the
cooling-off period lasted 7 days; it now is 14 days. But overall, the
witnesses did not seem to be against this process. It was pretty well
received, but everything is spoiled now.
In fact, I am trying to contain myself, because this 14-day period
will turn into a 21-day period according to another amendment
included in another group of motions.
I really do not know what the minister was thinking when he
came up with these amendments that are not needed to ensure the
balance we used to have and that was well received.
8529
We are concerned about the 72-hour period, because-and I will
end on this note-72 hours are enough to weaken a relationship
of power that took years to build.
We cannot talk about labour relations without mentioning the
balance of power that constantly shifts between the union and
management.
I will repeat it without any shame-you know that I am a straight
talker-72 hours' advance notice is in very bad taste. The
parliamentary secretary would gain in stature if he accepted to
intercede with the Minister of Labour. Incidentally, we would like
to have our greetings passed on to the minister, because we know
that he is very interested in our work here. Everybody knows that.
Through you, I would have only one word of advice for the
parliamentary secretary and that would be to make aggressive
representations and use all his well known speaking skills to ask
the government to remove this clause because it completely upsets
the balance the bill had almost reached. Without the 72 hours, the
process would have been rather well accepted by the parties.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of
Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and
the third reading stage of Bill C-71, an act to regulate the
manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to
make consequential amendments to another act and to repeal
certain acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the House
a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and
of motions in Group No. 6.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
group of motions, I will try to remain calm, but it will not be easy.
This bill, I repeat, is supposed to modernize the Canada Labour
Code, to take into account different labour relations, to take into
account that relations between unions and employers have changed
considerably.
(1635)
Instead of facilitating negotiations and, should they break down,
the exercice of the right to strike or to lock out, which can rapidly
lead to a negotiated settlement, this bill makes the rules more rigid
and makes negotiating and reaching a settlement even more
difficult.
In this regard, it is a dismal failure. And one wonders what
prompted the minister to completely overlook what could have
improved the conditions under which the right of association and
the right to strike can be exercised in Canada.
My colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve spoke about the
obligation to give 72 hours' notice before the right to strike can be
exercised. For my part, I would like to talk about what comes
before. What comes before that is the requirement for unions to
exercise their right to strike within 60 days of obtaining such right,
otherwise they have to go back to their members for another strike
vote. This is the provision of this bill that I find most difficult to
understand. I was a negotiator at one time and, when I see this
proposal, I wonder if those who thought of it have ever been
involved in negotiations.
If a union-and let us not forget that several of these unions are
national-has just obtained the right to strike, it will start a
negotiation process that could take a long time. If, after nearly 60
days, it has not come to an agreement, what will it do? Will it do
everything it can to come to an agreement at the risk of exceeding
the 60 day limit and losing the right to strike? No. If it is
responsible, it will stop negotiating instead of pursuing the
negotiations and trying to find a solution. It will stop negotiating
and submit a report that will allow it to win another strike vote.
This 60 day rule will hinder the negotiation process instead of
making it easier. It will impede the pursuit of a settlement and force
unions to hold more strike votes. In the end, as I was saying, it will
make the conditions that can lead to a settlement more rigid, less
flexible.
When you know that it is the basis of this bill, when you see that
the right to strike or the right to lock out cannot be exercised-and
I insist because some disputes end up in a lock-out or a strike and,
at the beginning, nobody knows what will come first. When you
add to that the 72 hour notice rule, it is even more difficult to
understand.
(1640)
When things start to go wrong in a business and work starts to
slow down, as a precautionary measure, the employer may be
8530
tempted to lock his workers out to avoid having to keep paying
them to produce less. Let us be honest about that.
No lockout action can be taken without giving notice at least 72
hours in advance. Similarly, a union anxious to exercise its right to
strike because bargaining is at a standstill will also be subject to a
72-hour notice provision. Moreover, should no strike occur on the
date indicated, a new 72-hour notice will have to be given.
Again, this makes the use of these job actions available to either
the employer or the workers rigid. Understandably, everyone wants
to prevent strikes and lockouts, but sometimes, on matters of
principle or money issues translating into matters of principle, one
side or the other figures the only way to get what it wants is to use
leverage.
In those circumstances, the rules set out in the labour code must
help and facilitate a settlement, and not make things drag on
endlessly, get in the way of a settlement or even preclude a
settlement that could have been reached had it not been for these
rules. The fact of the matter is that we are going to end up with a
worse Canada Labour Code than the one we had.
That is quite embarrassing. I guess we could say the minister and
the parliamentary secretary will have pie in the face, but in the end
those who will be stuck with bad rules and a bad labour code are
those in the field, those entitled to these services and the businesses
that will have to contend with additional problems.
At committee, we tried to get the point across that it made no
common sense but, I will repeat it in this place, the way business
was conducted in committee in no way does credit to this
government.
Legislation is passed a dozen at a time, but the legislation that is
passed has no bearing on the code, is of no use to bargaining parties
and is not the type that can be subject to arbitration or to a board
decision. When it comes to drafting something that will make up a
code, the committee should listen to those concerned and to the
official opposition when it has something to say on the matter. We
did not set out to embarrass the government because ultimately this
is meant to serve the public. We have tried to help the government.
But we were literally bulldozed out of the way; there is no other
way to describe what happened at the human resources
development committee.
When all we have is ten minutes to discuss this important
segment of the Canada Labour Code reform at report stage, we
have no choice but to raise our voices.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has put forward
a series of motions that would remove the compulsory conciliation
stage in the new requirements for the acquisition of the right to
strike and lockout, abolition of the conciliation process, Motion
No. 34.
However, before addressing this motion which would allow the
parties to acquire the right to strike and lockout at the date of
expiration of the collective agreement without having to file a
notice of dispute with the minister or to complete the conciliation
process, it is important to stress the role of conciliation in the
collective bargaining cycle under the Canada Labour Code.
(1645 )
During the extensive consultation process leading up to the
introduction of Bill C-66, representatives of labour and
management organizations subject to Part I of the code, while
critical of lengthy delays in the current conciliation process, found
conciliation itself valuable and praised the services offered by the
federal mediation and conciliation service.
The labour-management working group did not recommend that
compulsory conciliation be abolished as proposed by the official
opposition. It requested that the two stage process be replaced by a
shorter one stage process which could take various forms. The
official opposition is asking us to ignore the labour management
consensus which is reflected in the changes included in Bill C-66.
Extending the cooling off period, government Motion No. 35.
While the new conciliation process has received general support by
labour and management, some parties have expressed concerns
with respect to the duration of the cooling off period that the bill
will extend from its current 7 days to 14 days. Finding some merit
to these concerns, the government proposes to amend Bill C-66 to
increase the duration of that period to 21 days. This is the purpose
of Motion No. 35.
The cooling off period is designed to give the parties time to
evaluate their respective positions and weigh the consequences of a
decision to resort to economic sanctions. During this period
pressure on both sides is at its peak and there are high expectations
of the mediation that may take place.
Given the changes made to the conciliation process and given the
fact that some federal businesses are active over a large geographic
area and have nationwide bargaining units that can make the
logistics of mediation meetings difficult, some have expressed
doubts as to whether the 14 day cooling off period as provided for
in the bill will be sufficient to give the parties a serious opportunity
to settle their dispute and to have a positive impact on the work of
the mediator. This amendment will provide a more realistic
timeframe for the mediator to discharge his or her mandate.
Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17, strike and lockout notice. Under
Bill C-66 the right to strike and lockout will be required 21 days
after the conciliation is completed, subject to the parties meeting
8531
new requirements regarding the holding of a secret ballot vote
within the previous 60 days and giving a 72 hour advance notice.
The official opposition has put forward Motions Nos. 15, 16 and
17 which would delete the reference to the 72 hour notice
requirement and the obligation to send a new notice if no strike or
lockout occurs at the end of the notice period.
The purpose of the new 72 hour notice provision which
implements a recommendation of the tax force is twofold. First, it
will allow for an orderly shut down or reduction of operations and
alleviate the problems of perishables. Second, it will further focus
the parties on serious negotiations and should encourage settlement
of disputes.
To those unions which have expressed concern that this new
requirement will frustrate their right to strike, we want to point out
that Bill C-66 will not require that a new notice be given once a
strike or lockout action has commenced, even if it is temporarily
suspended. Furthermore, when the other sides begins first with a
strike or lockout action the requirement will not apply to the other
party.
Some other unions, mostly longshore unions, expressed the view
that the 72 hour notice will allow an unfair advantage to the
shipping companies and agents in the negotiation process, as it will
remove the prospect of ships being held captive during a port work
stoppage. This position is echoed by the official opposition.
The major economic impact of a port work stoppage is that the
port is closed and the fixed capital remains idle. Such a major
impact on important investments is a significant pressure point and
a reasonable offset for the loss of income employees must incur
during a work stoppage.
We believe that the 72 hours notice requirement will provide an
appropriate balance between these two competing interests.
Motions Nos. 18 and 23, strikes and lockout votes. The official
opposition is proposing two sets of motions relating to the strike
and lockout vote requirement. With Motion No. 18 the vote
requirement would simply be removed from the bill, whereas with
Motions Nos. 20 to 23 the statute would require a vote but include
no conditions for its conduct and no means for voters to challenge
its validity.
It is important to stress that with the exception of the current
Canada Labour Code secret ballot strike votes are mandatory in all
Canadian jurisdictions as a prerequisite for legal strike action.
(1650)
Although the vast majority of unions subject to the code already
hold secret ballot votes before declaring a strike in the absence of a
statutory requirement, employees in the bargaining unit who are
not union members may be excluded from participating in a major
decision which directly affects them.
Second, strike votes are not always held in a timely fashion. In
some cases a strike mandate is acquired early in the bargaining
process as a means of demonstrating solid employee support for
union demands but which may not be a true reflection of support
for a work stoppage.
The conditions for a valid vote specified in Bill C-66 reflect the
recommendations of the Sims task force. They are similar to
provisions found in a number of provincial statutes and they are not
onerous.
The vote must be held by secret ballot among all employees in
the bargaining unit or among all employers in the association
within 60 days prior to strike or lockout action. Eligible voters
must be given reasonable opportunity to participate in the vote.
Finally, the union or employer's association must obtain
majority support among the employees or employers who
participate in the vote.
It is hard to imagine that any democratically held vote would fail
to meet these basic requirements. These conditions will simply
ensure that such votes are timely, fairly conducted and are based on
the entire workplace involved in this dispute.
Government Motion No. 19, extension of the 60 day vote period.
Concerns have been raised that the 60 day period for holding a
strike vote may cause difficulties in some cases, particularly where
employees in the bargaining unit are dispersed across the country
or do not work at a specific location.
To address these legitimate concerns, the government has
introduced a motion to allow the 60 day validity period for a strike
or lockout vote to be extended by written agreement of the parties.
This amendment is consistent with the general approach in Bill
C-66 supported by labour and management that legislation should
be flexible enough to meet the specific needs of the parties.
Government Motion No. 33, no strike or lockout during the term
of the collective agreement. Another amendment that would further
improve Bill C-66 is Motion No. 33 which will clarify the scope of
the prohibition set out in the new section 88.1.
The only exception to the prohibition on strikes and lockout
during the term of the collective agreement under section 88.1 as
currently drafted is where a notice to bargain has been served
pursuant to a reopener provision in the party's collective
agreement.
However, there are other situations contemplated by the code
that allow for notice to bargain and therefore full negotiations to
take place before the expiry of a collective agreement.
8532
There are also some instances in the current code and in what
will be the amended code when the board has discretion to
authorize a party to give notice to bargain other than during the
last four months of a collective agreement.
This motion adjusts the language of section 88.1 to ensure that
where notice to bargain is authorized to be served during the term
of an agreement, the parties may acquire the right to strike or
lockout once they have completed a conciliation process and met
the other statutory prerequisite.
I would ask members to support this motion as well as Motions
No. 19 and 35.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66
provides that the right to strike or lockout will be subject to the
holding of a secret ballot vote during the previous 60 days and the
giving of a notice of at least 72 hours.
This is a very anti-union and unfair provision for workers and
unions. The right to strike is being subjected to so many conditions
and restrictions that the next step will be to eliminate this right.
First, the right to strike and the right to lockout are put on the
same level. However, the right to strike is exercised by a group of
workers. There has to be a majority vote. But in the case of a
lockout, there is no vote. A company official decides when to lock
employees out, which is unfair.
(1655)
Then, a secret ballot vote must be held. This means that the
union must convince workers that the offer is not acceptable, that
the ultimate recourse against the employer is to take a strike vote.
This is not easy for unions. During my years with the FTQ, the
Quebec federation of labour, we had to convince the majority of
workers of the need, at some point, for a strike vote.
Meanwhile, the employer who works every day with a group of
employees may sometime exert undue and unwarranted pressure to
convince them of the opposite, of the fact that they must not go on
strike, that working conditions are acceptable, that the offer is an
excellent one, etc.
Worse still is the fact that, to have the right to strike, the vote
must be held at most 60 days before the strike. This means that if
negotiations last for months, and even years, several consecutive
strike votes will have to be held. This is unfair for unions. Unions
should have the right to assess the situation and to set a date for a
strike vote. The union should also be the one deciding when the
vote will apply and when the strike will begin.
Not only must this secret ballot vote be held within 60 days of
the strike, but an advance notice of at least 72 hours must be given
to the employer. This is going too far. One wonders what will
happen to the right to strike in Canada, a right that is provided
under the Canada Labour Code. For all intents and purposes, it will
be almost impossible to go on strike with so many restrictions.
There are conventions under the International Labour
Organization that recognize the workers' right to strike. This
provision, introduced by the government as an amendment to the
Canada Labour Code, goes against the ILO principles that
recognize the right to strike.
I wanted to express my absolute opposition to these very unfair
and anti-union provisions.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member who just sat down tried to claim that these members are
anti-union. When I read through their recommendations where they
have objection to secret ballot votes, I have to wonder if maybe
their amendments are not anti-democratic. What better way to
express a view on anything than through a secret ballot.
We talked earlier in other amendments about undue pressure
being put on either one side or the other to come to a decision that
was considered to be harassment, undue pressure or otherwise
excessive convincing. I do not think we can have it both ways. We
cannot say that this group is not allowed to express their rights but
this group is allowed to express their rights and to put on whatever
pressure is necessary so that they can come out with a favourable
outcome of their vote.
What are they suggesting, that they have a show of hands only or
a mail in ballot? A secret vote is the only way to go.
(1700)
The government has made some amendments that are worthy of
support. I have recommended to our caucus that we support them
as they seem to make good sense and are not in any way
confrontational. In this particular area we should be doing
everything we can to seek a balance and to make sure that one side
does not have all the ammunition and the other side just has a
shield.
Rather than going on and on in this regard, we would be willing
to support Motions Nos. 19, 33 and 35. However I am unable to
come up with the proper rationale to support any of the Bloc
amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8533
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred. The vote on Motion No. 15 applies to
Motions Nos. 16 and 17.
The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The questions on Motions Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are also
accordingly deferred pending the outcome of the vote on Motion
No. 18.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The vote also applies to Motions Nos. 39 and 44. The question
will be put on Motion No. 35 if Motion No. 34 is defeated.
We will move on to the motions in Group No. 7, which includes
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 28 to 30 and 32. All these motions are
deemed to have been moved, seconded and read.
(1705)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 27 with the
following:
``of the public or the causing of severe economic hardship to the national economy.''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by
(a) replacing line 20 on page 28 with the following:
``danger to the safety or health of the public or cause severe economic hardship to
the national economy, the''
(b) replacing line 28 on page 28 with the following:
``or health of the public or the causing of severe economic hardship to the national
economy;''
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 30 with the
following:
``they normally provide to ensure the uninterrupted export of commodities from
point of origin to final destination and the tie-up,''
Motion No. 29
8534
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 30 with the
following:
``let-go and loading of vessels and the''
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended, in the English version, by replacing line
10 on page 30, with the following:
``movement of vessels in and out of a''
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 46 on page 30
and lines 1 to 6 on page 31.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of the amendments contained in group
No. 7.
I have received letters from several grain farmers over the past
months with respect to Bill C-66. They have said that at the least
this piece of legislation would require that grain moves through the
port once it arrives there. They said that would help to some extent.
There have been many work stoppages over the years. Grain has
arrived at port and one thing or another has stopped it from moving.
The farmers have said that legislation would help.
Farmers did not know that part of the legislation would make
things much worse, the measure to prevent the use of replacement
workers. That could lead to a slower movement of grain and more
damage to farmers as a result of having their commodity held up en
route to port or as it is being loaded on a ship.
Farmers are torn on this issue. I want to speak for them on it.
There is a better solution than the one offered in the legislation. The
farmers have told me so and I will speak on behalf of the ones who
have contacted me.
Grain farmers have suffered for too long. Some have seen their
livelihood for an entire year being snatched away due to poor
weather conditions. As well, often their grain has either been left
on the farm or in local elevators due to some kind of movement
disruption. That has happened too often.
One of the first pieces of legislation I spoke on when I came to
Ottawa in 1994 had to do with putting grain handlers at the port of
Vancouver back to work. It was back to work legislation. We have
seen back to work legislation again and again. When we have
government interfering, forcing the system to work through back to
work legislation, clearly there are problems in the system which
have to be dealt with.
I forget the number but there have been something like 20
stoppages over the years I remember. I remember as a very young
boy on the farm getting grain ready to go to market and desperately
needing the money from the grain to meet day to day expenses, to
buy clothes and food for the family. Then I would hear about a
stoppage in the grain handling system. There might have been
some problem with the railway. More often than not the grain
handlers were on strike at the port. Any one of the many links in the
system might have broken down. Who paid the price? The captive
shippers, in this case the grain farmers who have no other practical
way of getting their commodity to the ships so they can get paid.
This has happened again and again.
As I said, one of the first pieces of legislation that I spoke on was
to legislate the grain handlers back to work. The problem had not
been solved.
(1710 )
Will this piece of legislation help? To some extent it will. At
least grain that makes it to the port will be moved through the
system and loaded on to ships. That is not enough, not close to
enough. It is not only grain farmers who are affected by a system
that does not come through again, again and again. It is people with
many other commodities who have no other way of getting them to
port other than by railway. It is a system that breaks down on them
again and again and costs them dearly. The legislation does not fix
the system.
What has Reform proposed over the three and a half years we
have been here? We have proposed many different solutions to the
problem. In my second speech in the House in February 1994 I
proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration which my
colleague has mentioned in the House as a permanent solution to
the problem.
Final offer selection arbitration allows for the bargaining process
to take place but absolutely prevents a stoppage in grain movement
right from the local elevator to the ship. That is the solution
farmers need. That is the solution other captive shippers need.
Nothing less than that is good enough, and this legislation provides
a lot less. With the negatives it is questionable whether it will make
things better or worse. On balance it could well make things worse.
We need this change. The Reform member for Lethbridge put
forward a private member's bill respecting a final offer selection
arbitration some time back in 1994. That bill was debated in the
House and I believe it was votable. Had it passed it would have
become legislation. Did we get support from the same government
that is now presenting this piece of legislation? Did we get support
from the Bloc? Did we get support from anybody for that
legislation?
We never got support from anybody in the House but we got
support right across western Canada from grain farmers who are
fed up with having constant disruptions in grain movement that
cost them so dearly when they can ill afford it. They are already at
8535
the mercy of the weather and world prices, world prices being low
more often than not due to government interference in the market.
It is not just the American government and the European
governments that interfere in the market and do not allow the
market to work properly. It is also the Canadian government.
Canadian governments-Conservative and Liberal-have been
interfering for some time. This has led to depressed prices. Farmers
have had to deal with all this and with continual disruptions.
It is time for some real change. It is time we put in place final
offer arbitration as a way to ensure that captive shippers get their
products loaded on to ships in a timely fashion. This legislation
will not do that unless we include these amendments and clearly
end disruptions in the handling system once and for all. Farmers
deserve no less.
In the red book the government included virtually nothing on
agriculture. As an afterthought an addendum was added which
included a lot of nice things to help make things better for farmers.
It is time the government delivered on at least this one.
It is time not to settle for quarter or half measures. It is time to
solve the problem. The government has an opportunity to deal with
the problem and to say that it will solve the problem completely.
Maybe that is overstating the case but it would certainly help in a
dramatic way. That is why I speak in support of Group No. 7
amendments. I encourage the Liberal government to finally do
something for grain farmers. They are being held hostage by the
grain handling system. Right now, once again this year, grain is not
moving.
(1715)
During the elimination of the Crow benefit, the changes to the
Canada Transportation Act and the privatization of CN Rail I called
again and again for measures, as did my colleagues, that would put
competition into the system. It would have fixed the car allocation
process. It would have made the system work.
The government did not heed our call for action. Here is a chance
for it to make up for that in some small way. It should support this
group of amendments that will finally allow for movement of grain
right from the local elevator to the ship without disruption. It is the
least that farmers should expect from the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I really want those who are following what we are doing
to realize that, with the amendments proposed by the Reform
Party-and I am not using any euphemisms, it is not a figure of
style, I mean it literally-we are faced with amendments aimed at
reducing the workers' right to strike. We would not have believed
it possible for clauses of this nature to be brought forward.
For purely instructional reasons-I cannot be other than
instructional since I am next to the hon. member for
Rimouski-Temiscouata, who is a teacher-I would simply like to
review for those who are following the debate just what is
involved.
Clause 87.7(1) of the bill concerns access and services to grain
vessels. The entire question of western grain, as we are all aware,
even without any connection to the west, is of absolutely vital
importance. This is a key sector of the economy.
What the legislator is giving here is a balanced point of view, one
which, in committee-and I believe I am correct in saying
this-even the ports people, the national stevedoring committee,
indicated that they were somewhat in favour of the obligation, the
maintaining of this obligation, to load vessels.
To quote the clause in question more precisely: ``During a work
stoppage, an employer in the long-shoring industry or other port
industry, or its employees, shall continue to provide the services
they normally provide to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of
grain vessels and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a
port''. It is understood that this is where shipping for export is
involved, where anticipated high and low demand is a sensitive
issue, so it makes sense to maintain such an obligation. I repeat,
this clause in Bill C-66 was favourably received by the workers
concerned.
A little further it says that unless the parties otherwise agree,
rates of pay or any other terms or conditions of employment of the
employees assigned to grain vessels during a strike are those
provided in the previous collective agreement. I repeat, this is a
wise provision.
And finally, on application by one of the parties or on referral by
the minister, the board may make any order it considers appropriate
to ensure compliance with that subsection. We are told that this
new provision implements the proposal by the task force to include
such a requirement in the labour code to prevent successive
interruptions of grain exports as a result of work stoppages by
employers and employees in a port.
Two years ago we, as parliamentarians, experienced the impact
of a work stoppage involving the grain industry and the ports.
(1720)
To avoid repeated work stoppages that can have a serious
economic impact without depriving people of their right to strike,
we agree with the proposed procedure.
We were surprised, however, to see that in the amendments
proposed by the Reform Party, the reference was no longer to grain
vessels but to all vessels. As though potash, uranium, steel,
newsprint, recycled materials, bulk commodities, spices, and so
8536
forth, should be treated exactly the same way. As though all export
or shipping traffic should be treated the same way as the grain
sector.
This is frivolous, and it is an unjustified restriction of the right to
strike. Several times witnesses, especially for the employer side,
came to tell us that we, as parliamentarians, should agree to expand
the provisions significantly beyond grain vessels, and every time
the official opposition said that this was impossible, that we did not
think it was desirable or reasonable.
What reasons does the Reform Party have for wishing to restrict
the right to strike or to expand the obligation to provide loading
services? We agree with the provisions in the bill that say that in
the case of grain vessels, nothing should be allowed to interrupt the
loading, tie-up and let-go of grain vessels.
We cannot agree with that, and we cannot agree to generalize the
provision contained in Bill C-66.
To do so would impose restrictions on and considerably
undermine the rights of workers, and we do not want to be
associated with such a process. I believe we will have a chance to
see and comment on the scope of the Reform Party's amendments
when we consider the next group of amendments, which deal with
replacement workers.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my friend
from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked rather rhetorically what
motivated the Reform Party to present these amendments. I am
happy to tell him what our motivation was.
We are in favour of any measure, within reason, that helps the
farmers get grain to port, on to the ships and to market. However,
why has only grain been given this priority? A lot of other
commodities in Canada have to be shipped. Certainly grain is a
very important commodity and it fits into another specific category
which a lot of others do not. It is a food stuff, a staple which is
perishable. That makes it fit into two categories.
There are coal, potash, lumber, plenty of other commodities
which may or may not reach port, which may sit in the mill yard or
at the mine and be held up because of a rail strike or because of
other unions which may be on strike or locked out. It is a work
disruption that prevents those products from getting to port and
ultimately to market.
I do not have to tell the House that the Canadian economy is
rather fragile and needs an infusion or transfusion. The Canadian
economy has suffered hit after hit because of work stoppages which
resulted in lost markets, of ships going to other ports to get similar
commodities because they have been assured they will be loaded.
(1725 )
I do not have to tell members that if a ship is turned away from a
port once or twice its owner may say: ``We are tired of that sort of
treatment. We are going to make permanent arrangements with
another port''. The port of Vancouver has lost business in the past
to the port of Seattle simply because Seattle seems to be a more
reliable port over a long period of time.
That is why we have introduced these amendments. We also feel
that final offer selection arbitration is a good tool, although the
Sims task force did not seem to agree with us. It stated that the use
of final offer arbitration would create a situation where there would
seem to be a winner and a loser. That is possible. However, final
offer selection arbitration would also have the effect of having
those parties bargain to the point where the winner would not win a
lot and the loser would not lose a lot. If the parties knew it could
come to that, they would probably reach an agreement before the
arbitrator was ever named.
Therefore, I cannot encourage the House strongly enough to
consider the use of final offer selection arbitration.
Let me read some comments from standing committee witnesses
with regard to this amendment that separates grain as a commodity
and does not allow the others.
Donald Downing, president of the Coal Association of Canada,
had this to say: ``This amendment cannot be allowed to stand as it
discriminates between commodities and makes a special case for
one. It suggests the Government of Canada places a priority and a
special status on grain that would be impossible for us to explain to
our valued coal customers in over 20 countries''. I think that speaks
volumes. How would the coal association explain this? ``Yes, it is
true that if grain arrives at port that the right to strike has been
taken away from the people who load the grain, but if coal arrives
at port it is just going to have to sit there and wait''.
I have a couple of other quotes here that I may or may not read
into the record but they are on the record of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
Section 87.4 allows for the continuation of a service in a
strike/lockout situation if there is a danger to public health and
safety. That is a good amendment, but I would submit that it needs
to have one more caveat attached to it which is that there should be
some provision for the protection of the national economy. I
suppose one could say that absolutely anything could affect the
national economy, but we are talking about things that have a huge
effect on the national economy and a huge effect on Canada's
reputation as a reliable supplier of these commodities.
8537
My colleague from Vegreville has talked about final offer
selection arbitration. I have spoken on it several times today and
numerous times in the past. We will probably continue to do so
in the future because it is a tool that is not discriminatory to either
management or labour. It is a tool that can be used equally by
either one.
(1730)
It is a rather unique situation. It is a tool that, if used to its
ultimate, is not used at all. Therefore it is exactly what the situation
calls for. What we have now is a situation where the parties are
discouraged from reaching an agreement. Maybe discouraged is a
bit too strong. At least they are not encouraged to bargain
something they can both live with because they know, and the
employer is just as guilty as the employees, it is not really
necessary to come to terms at this point. ``Let's hold out and we
will only be out a few days. We will be legislated back to work''.
We have plenty of precedents. They are only out for three or four
days. Parliament legislates them all back to work.
What has happened to their right to strike there? That is taking
the right to strike or the right to lockout completely out of their tool
box.
I really think it is important to the Canadian economy and
ultimately to jobs in this country. We all know how important jobs
are. Every time we lose an international customer for whether it is
coal, grain, potash or lumber we are losing jobs. We simply cannot
afford that. I am sure members will agree.
In committee the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte
secured passage of an amendment that would help prevent work
stoppages on the Atlantic ferry operating between North Sydney
and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. In essence it was declared an
essential service. It was a great amendment, one that was certainly
important to the member who introduced it and to the people of
Newfoundland. For one reason or another, perhaps known only to
the government, that amendment does not show up.
I would like to express my disappointment. It was a good
amendment. It should have been here.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak to the amendments put forward by the members of the
Reform Party, because it is important to make the distinction I do
not think was made between what they want to do and the intent,
even misguided, of the law, which was to recognize that there are
essential services.
As you know, regardless of where we look in this country, there
are no real miracles. Either strikes and lockouts are recognized and
certain essential services maintained for reasons of public health
and safety or they are not. In fact, however, no country is able to
prevent strikes and lockouts. So most countries have opted for
provisions to regulate essential services.
The Government of Canada, which had no such provision in past
disputes, is trying to plug that loophole with clause 87(4), which
states that if it:
-is of the opinion that a strike or lockout could pose an immediate and serious
danger to the safety or health of the public-
the board may issue an order to decide what activities should be
designated and how and to what extent the employer and
employees should attempt to come to an understanding.
So, in the event of serious public health and safety concerns, the
board will ask the parties to negotiate. And if the parties fail to
reach an understanding, the board may decide what must be done.
(1735)
The Reform Party wants to add ``severe economic hardship to
the national economy'' to the provisions on public health and
safety, to the imminent and serious danger to the safety or health of
the public. They have two amendments to that effect.
Let me tell you that the board would be at a loss to determine
what ``severe economic hardship to the national economy'' means.
It seems to me that it would be hard to determine, given that, with
unemployment soaring to 15 per cent in Montreal, one can wonder
what it takes to qualify as severe economic hardship.
This provision does not seem relevant. They did provide an
explanation. But the truth is that severe economic hardship cannot
be used as a criterion in determining the services that should be
considered essential.
The other very important amendment they made does not limit
the employees' right to strike or the employer's right to lock
workers out by designating some services as essential but by
eliminating these rights altogether. That is in section 87.7, and I
should point out that an agreement was reached. We were under the
impression that both the unions and the employers in the
long-shoring industry agreed with the contents of section 87.7,
which states:
During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, an employer in the
long-shoring industry, or other industry included in paragraph (a) of the definition
``federal work, undertaking or business'' in section 2, its employees and their
bargaining agent shall continue to provide the services they normally provide to
ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels and the movement of the grain
vessels in and out of a port.
I know that the unions were in agreement because of their past
experiences with lockouts and special legislation that was imposed
on them when they were prepared to continue loading grain
vessels. I know, I gave evidence to that effect and I can attest to it
here because, as it happens, I was the critic on this issue when the
final offer mechanism was used to settle a dispute, and I know that
employers took advantage of the fact no such provision existed.
Sometimes the employers are right, sometimes the unions are right,
8538
but in that particular case, the employers clearly played a dirty trick
on the unions.
The unions representing the longshoremen were prepared to
continue loading the grain. Day after day, they repeatedly told us in
the House that grain, and not potash, coal, or any other raw
materials, was to be loaded into vessels or should we say unloaded,
but this was not included in the amendment.
So, to remove the fact that they meant grain vessels and to
change this section, as they are doing, means that dockers could
never strike no matter what type vessel was involved. Clearly, this
provision is impracticable. As I said at the beginning, everybody
knows in the end that options exist.
(1740)
Either we restrict the right to strike and to lock out by invoking
essential services, or else we prohibit them. If we prohibit them, we
know that we are opening the door to illegal strikes and lockouts
which complicate the situation, and are against the rules.
In this second section, Reform members remove this ``essential
services'' aspect. This aspect is related to grain vessels and
interested parties agreed that for grain vessels, the right to strike
would not exist. Services for grain vessels are essential, but other
port activities will be limited by the definition of essential services.
I understand the pressure exerted on grain producers, but it
seems to me that this issue, about which we heard a lot, is answered
in clause 87.7. As for other producers, the government is trying to
prohibit the right to strike or lockout, with the result that it will be
done illegally and in conditions that we do not accept. The idea is
to provide for some essential services in the labour code.
I will end on an interrogative or humorous note. I am leaving it
up to members opposite to choose the term that best applies. The
committee proposed an amendment to clause 87.8. This
amendment provided that the freight and passenger service
between Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia
should be considered an essential service. I see that this small
amendment proposed by the committee without the minister's
approval was withdrawn by the minister at report stage. I imagine
Liberal members will have something to say about this.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to enter into the debate today to talk about the provisions that
my colleagues in the Reform Party have mentioned. The
amendments we are trying to propose here today would ensure
final offer binding arbitration for the situation in the grain and
transportation industry, in the whole delivery system for what is a
very important part of the Canadian economy, the export market.
I would argue whether it is in the national interest or not but it is
very important for continuing service in the domestic markets as
well. With tongue in cheek I must chastize my colleagues from the
Reform Party who talked so much about the grain producers, which
is worthwhile. I know many grain producers.
I would like to talk about the necessity to provide an assured
transportation system for the feed industry. The feed industry in a
province like my own relies extensively or maybe exclusively on
the ability of the rail system to deliver feed in a timely fashion to
the west coast for the use in our own feed industry.
West of the Rockies in my area in the Fraser Valley we probably
have the biggest concentration of the chicken and dairy industry.
There are hundreds of chicken, dairy and hog farmers all relying on
a grain system and delivery system that will give them what they
need in a timely fashion.
I mention this because this is not a theoretical discussion about
the importance of assuring this system is not interrupted for any
length of time.
(1745 )
The feed industry in the lower mainland has been denied access
to grain delivery from the prairies. It has had to resort to trucking
grain from Alberta to the Fraser Valley to try to keep chicken
farmers and the rest of the farm industries in my area from running
out of feed for their livestock.
They have heard every excuse under the sun. It has been blamed
on the weather, a lack of locomotives, farmers, being unable to spot
cars in the prairies and who knows what. I do not know if the
minister knows. He certainly has not done a whole lot to help them
out.
It is an example of a system that both export and domestic
markets rely on being interrupted for whatever reason. Not only
does it hurt our reputation abroad. It also hurts our ability to look
after our own industries. Whether it can be blamed on the weather
or on the government, it points out the necessity of having an
assured supply of grain delivered to the west coast.
If the government is not prepared to entertain the idea of final
offer binding arbitration it needs to do something to reassure the
feed industry in my area will somehow be able to intervene to make
sure it gets grain.
There are not enough trucks available in British Columbia to
haul grain in the amount required to look after the industry in the
lower mainland. The grain has to be trucked all the way from
Alberta, maybe 700, 800 or 900 kilometres one way, to the feed
mills in the Chilliwack area in order to sustain the industry on an
8539
ongoing basis. They cannot hire enough trucks. Maybe the hon.
member has enough trucks to help out, but farmers in my area
cannot hire enough trucks to get that much feed delivered.
As grain cars back up across the prairies and on sidings at Boston
Bar, tantalizingly close but still not delivered to the feed mills, we
see the crisis develop in a hurry in the lower mainland.
I ask the government to consider what we are proposing today.
We do not want to see our domestic market hung up because
somebody threw their hands up in the air and walked away from a
labour dispute. We have to be able to say that from production to
delivery there is a system exporters can count on. Equally
important and certainly even more important in my riding is the
ability to know we can rely on the transportation system day in and
day out, year in and year out, to get feed to the feed bins.
If we cannot do that in British Columbia I can tell the House
what will happen. The agricultural industry which relies on the
grain from the prairies will die a slow, withering death in British
Columbia. Over the last two or three weeks we have seen an
industry begging for some kind of government intervention to
provide enough grain to feed the chickens. They should be able to
rely on that and if they cannot they will do what they have to do.
They are telling me that if they cannot rely on the grain delivery
system into the lower mainland, they will have to take their
industry somewhere else. To tell farmers in the lower mainland that
they are just not wanted is unacceptable. There should be some way
to assure them that the export market important. We should
encourage diversity and value added in the agricultural industry.
We should encourage the feed industry and exports.
(1750 )
If I can use an agricultural term, one thing feeds on another and
together it creates a critical mass of agricultural industries from
suppliers to machinery dealers, to machine shops, to people such as
Ty-crop in my area that has sprung up around an agricultural
industry because of a certain critical mass there. They have become
internationally known. All those things are at risk if the
government does not assure a supply of grain to farmers.
Over the last few days some of the grain stuck on sidings in
Boston Bar, sniffing distance away, have come to market. The
inability to spot cars on the prairies and the inability to guarantee
delivery have the whole feed industry in a turmoil. The industry
needs that assurance.
By not assuring farmers of the future and of that supply farmers
will start voting with their feet and with their cheque books. They
will leave an area of uncertainty for an area of assurance. They will
either move to the prairies, move to the states or move somewhere
if they cannot count on our delivery system.
I urge the government to consider these amendments which will
assure timely delivery to the feed industry. It will help producers
and consumers, in this case the feed industry, to do the job the
Canadian government and the rest of us have asked them to do. I
ask the government to consider these amendments in the light of
what I have presented today.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 introduces for the first time
in the Canada Labour Code provisions which will require the
maintenance of activities necessary to prevent immediate and
serious danger to public health and safety during work stoppages.
My colleagues in the Reform Party are proposing by Motions
Nos. 24 and 25 to extend the application of these provisions to a
much broader range of activities by making economic hardship to
the national economy a criterion for requiring parties to maintain
services during a work stoppage. Bill C-66 also introduces a
requirement for employers and employees in the ports to continue
to provide services to grain vessels in the event of a work stoppage.
The aim of this proposal is twofold: to ensure the continued
movement of grain exports and to reduce reliance on legislative
interventions to terminate and resolve port-labour management
disputes. The Reform Party is seeking to extend the application of
this provision to all commodities exported through the ports. These
changes to Bill C-66 would effectively remove strike and lockout
rights from large numbers of employers and employees subject to
the code.
Let us recognize this approach for what it really is: a denial of
free collective bargaining rights for large numbers of workers and
employers in the federal labour jurisdiction, an approach more
commonly associated with less democratic societies. We all know
how successful such states have been in solving their economic and
social problems.
Representatives of both labour and business told the Sims task
force that they want to be able to frame their own agreements rather
than have third party solutions imposed upon them. In their view
third party solutions have had a history of failure, particularly when
the issues in dispute involve significant changes to traditional
practices.
The Sims task force examined the issue of maintenance of
activities and concluded that the right to strike or lockout should
not be removed from any group of workers or any employer subject
to the code. The task force recommended that the code include
specific provisions for the protection of public health and safety
during work stoppages. With respect to the appropriate criteria for
8540
determining which activity should be maintained, both labour and
management support protection of public health and safety as a
criterion.
The maintenance of activities provisions in Bill C-66 balance the
collective bargaining rights of employees and employers subject to
the code with the public's right to protection of health and safety.
They represent a fair and equitable approach which has the support
of both the labour and management parties.
I will now turn to the grain provision. Grain has been declared
for the general advantage of Canada. It is a multi-billion dollar
industry which exports to over 70 countries worldwide. The
livelihood of 130,000 farmers and their families depends on
Canada maintaining its reputation as a reliable exporter. These
interests must however be balanced with the rights of labour and
management to determine fair terms and conditions of employment
through collective bargaining.
(1755)
Since 1972 there have been 12 work stoppages in west coast
ports which have disrupted grain exports. Nine of these work
stoppages have involved longshoremen and their employers. Only
three have involved grain handlers. One of these was limited to
Prince Rupert and as such did not affect major terminal elevators in
Vancouver.
Requiring the continuation of port services to grain vessels will
therefore eliminate the major source of disruptions to our grain
exports due to work stoppages in ports. However, as it is limited to
services to grain vessels in the ports, it will not remove the right to
strike or lockout from any group of employees or employers.
When grain exports are interrupted due to work stoppages
pressures are immediately brought to bear on Parliament to adopt
emergency legislation. In the past Parliament has intervened
quickly to end and resolve disputes in the ports which have affected
grain exports. This does not contribute to sound
labour-management relations in the ports. The parties have come to
expect Parliament to intervene. They have developed negotiation
strategies around this assumption. This removes responsibility
from the parties engaged in a collective bargaining dispute to
resolve their own problems. It enables the parties to blame the
government and ultimately Parliament for any consequences of an
imposed settlement they perceive as adverse to their interests.
The proposal in Bill C-66 preserves the right of workers and
employers in all sectors to engage in collective bargaining while
providing protections to Canada's grain industry. It is the equitable
approach suggested by the Sims task force and widely supported by
the grain producers.
As the Minister of Labour indicated when he introduced the bill
and repeated before the standing committee, the provision with
respect to services to grain vessels will be subject to review in
1999, at which time stronger measures could be considered if
necessary. The parties should therefore take the opportunity to
make these provisions work.
The amendment adopted by members of the standing committee
would require the continuation of ferry services between Port aux
Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, in the
event of a collective bargaining dispute. The government has
introduced a motion to remove this requirement. I would like to
explain why the provision is inadvisable from an industrial
relations point of view.
While committee members heard from a number of groups with
interests in tourism and economic development in Newfoundland,
they did not have an opportunity to hear from labour and
management on this issue or to examine the industrial relations
implications of the provision.
First, it is important to note there has not been a legal strike or
lockout involving employees providing ferry service between Port
aux Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia and
their employer, Marine Atlantic, since the corporation began
operating the service over 23 years ago. Marine Atlantic and the
union representing the employees have always been able to reach
an agreement on terms and conditions of employment without
resorting to work stoppages.
Second, this issue did not surface during the lengthy process of
the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code which included
cross-country consultations by an independent task force and
subsequently by the Minister of Labour. This is unfortunate since
there would have been an opportunity for a more careful
examination of a serious issue, that is the removal of strike and
lockout rights for a group of employees and their employer. At first
glance one might think the impact of this provision would be the
same as the requirement in Bill C-66 for port services to grain
vessels to be continued in the event of work stoppages. However
that is not the case.
The requirement with respect to port services to grain vessels
does not remove the strike and lockout rights of any bargaining unit
of employees or any employer. Only port work related to grain
vessels would have to be continued in the event of a work stoppage.
This would affect a small portion of workers in any bargaining unit
in the ports. The employer and the union would still be able to exert
economic pressures throughout the strike or lockout action.
However, in the case of ferry services by May of this year when
ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland will
cease the only year-round ferry service run by the current
employer, Marine Atlantic, will be that between Port aux Basques
and North Sydney. If the requirement to maintain this service is not
revoked, employers and employees will not be able to exert
economic pressure to resolve a collective bargaining dispute.
8541
There are other changes in Bill C-66 which adequately address
concerns raised before the standing committee without removing
the rights of parties. The parties operating ferry services would
be required to maintain services necessary to prevent immediate
and serious danger to public health and safety. The new time
limited one stage conciliation process will reduce the length of
bargaining and encourage earlier settlements. In addition, the new
requirement for a 72-hour advance notice of a strike or lockout
action will prevent unexpected disruptions to service.
(1800)
It seems to me to be somewhat heavy-handed to remove
legitimate rights from a group of workers and their employer in
anticipation of the possibility that a situation which has not
occurred in over 23 years could happen. The removal of strike and
lockout rights may have the undesirable effect of undermining the
positive labour-management relations which have enabled the
union and the employer to resolve collective bargaining disputes
without resorting to work stoppages. Poor labour-management
relations can negatively impact on the quality and reliability of the
services.
I urge members to support the government motion to delete the
provision with respect to the maintenance of ferry services. I am
confident that the other changes to the bargaining process in Bill
C-66 are sufficient to address any perceived problems with respect
to ferry services between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia without
removing the collective bargaining rights of the parties.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this issue today but I have
heard a number of comments and I thought I would just add a few
thoughts on this issue.
When I heard the hon. member from Fraser Valley talk about
how his farmers were short of grain, it really astounded me. I look
at statistics and see that the turnaround of a grain car in 1908 to the
port at Vancouver was 21 days and today it is 19.5 days. That is one
and a half days less.
I know the trains are going about four or five times faster than
they used to. I know that elevators load cars about three or four
times faster as they used to. Why do we have only a one and a half
day shorter turnaround?
I am astounded when I hear that the farmers in British Columbia
are suffering just like the grain farmers in Manitoba because they
cannot move their product. The farmers in the Fraser Valley cannot
feed their animals to produce money or to increase the economy. It
astounds me when nobody talks about $1 million a day demurrage
charges for ships sitting in port which is due to somebody's
ignorance, mismanagement or inefficiency.
How can a country continue to prosper when we have this type of
economy? What the government reminds me of is that if it had a
spoke come out of a buggy wheel, it would shoot the horse. That is
the way this government solves problems.
The government passed laws doing away with transportation
subsidies, saying that everything would go smoothly from here on.
Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I had nine miles of hopper
cars sitting empty in my constituency all summer and fall. No grain
was being moved. Tell me why. We have a record carryover of feed
grain on hand right now. Why did those chickens in B.C. not get
that grain when they needed it? I wish somebody could explain that
to me. The CPR agent came to see me. He said: ``Jake, we had 50
miles of empty hopper cars sitting around all summer up till the
harvest time''.
We had a record carryover of grain and the chickens are starving
in B.C. Is this something that we in the opposition are creating or is
this something the government is not looking after? I would like to
know. If we run our country in this direction we will not even have
a dead horse to shoot. It will die before we get the gun out.
It is important that we finally realize that trucks move six or
seven times faster than they did in the early 1900s. Grain cars can
be loaded faster. Trains can move faster. There is a problem
somewhere. Somebody is not doing his job using these implements
or these tools. Who is it? It is not thin air. It has to be either
management or labour.
The people who produce the products to be moved have
increased their production 10, 15 and 20 times. They are not getting
rewarded for it, nor are the farmers who are producing in the value
added industries like chicken, dairy and hogs.
(1805 )
I wish the government would start realizing that farmers vote. If
we do not have farmers, the other people who vote will not be
eating very long and might not be voting either. It may not just be a
matter of debating this issue in the House, it is a matter of doing
something. The grain is there, the vehicles are there and the special
value industries are there but something is not working. We had
better find the problem.
I know in my farm operation if the tractor or the combine is
sitting it is because the guy who is supposed to drive it is not
around. That is what is happening to all our industries that are
supposed to move the grain. Somebody is not around.
When I hear in my constituency that the railway workers have to
be brought by limousine half way down toward Winnipeg and then
the train sits for six or seven hours waiting for another limousine to
come from Winnipeg to bring out another crew, I can see why we
do not get anything moved. This is the reason we are having
problems.
8542
It is high time that we started realizing that if these value added
industries are not going to be successful, like my hon. friend from
Fraser Valley says, they are going to move. They are not going
to stay around. When they move there will be no more taxes for
the government to collect and no more industries providing jobs.
Let us get on the ball and do something.
Why are we not succeeding? I would say it is because we have a
Liberal government on that side and Reform on this side. However,
that will change in the next election. Then things will start running
smoothly. We will move grain and feed the chickens and we will
not have to shoot the horse any more to solve the problem.
* * *
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the
purpose of considering of Bill C-66.
[
Translation]
Also I ask the unanimous consent of the House in deeming the
recorded divisions and the votes on any other motion necessary to
dispose of the bill at report stage to have been requested and
deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: There are two matters to settle. First of
all, the government whip is moving that the House continue to sit
beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of
considering Bill C-66.
[English]
Will all members who object to the motion please rise in their
places.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: There not being 15 members rising in
objection to the motion, the motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has also heard the hon.
government whip's suggestion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendments) from committee; and of
the amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question on
Group No. 7?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 24. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1810)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 24
stands deferred. The result of the division on Motion No. 24 will
also apply to Motion No. 25.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had no
intention of causing anyone to err, in this instance my colleagues
from the Reform Party. Certainly it was understood that the request
for unanimous consent would be applicable to Motions Nos. 8, 9
and 10.
I would also willingly offer the same co-operation on the group
presently before the House, Group No. 7, if the members of the
Bloc would also consent to have that vote deferred until tomorrow
when all those matters will be dealt with.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 28. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
8543
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 28
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 29
stands deferred. The result of the division on Motion No. 29 will
also apply to Motion No. 30.
The next question is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 32
stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Group No. 8, which includes Motions
Nos. 26, 31 and 42.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 29 with the
following:
``the trade union, direct that final offer selection arbitration be used as a method of''
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 30 with the
following:
``make an order directing the parties to adopt final offer selection arbitration as a
method of resolving the issues in dispute between the parties for the purpose of
ensuring the settlement of the dispute to''
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 35 with the
following:
``final offer selection arbitration as the method of resolving those terms,''
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Group No. 8 amendments. This group calls for
the use of final offer selection arbitration to settle disputes so there
will not be strikes or lockouts in the system in the future.
I would like to start by reminding members on the government
side of some things that have taken place over the past three and a
half years leading to this legislation, how they were dealt with, the
impact they had on the farming industry in particular, but also on
other industries where there are captive shippers. Then I will talk
about what the amendments in this group would do to help alleviate
some of the problems caused by the lack of action on the part of
this government over the past three and a half years.
Three major pieces of legislation have come before the House
which have had a huge impact on grain movement over the past
three and a half years. The first was the elimination of the Crow
benefit, thus requiring farmers to pay the full cost of freight when
they had been paying less than half the cost. When this legislation
was passed, we agreed to support it if some changes were made that
would make things better.
Later, the new Canadian Transportation Act was passed. Again,
my colleagues and I called for some changes that would improve
the act so the system would work better. Then came the legislation
that led to the privatization of CN. My colleagues and I called for a
series of amendments that would have made things work better.
What do we have? We have the Crow benefit eliminated, farmers
paying the full cost of transportation. Is the system working better?
Ask some of our colleagues from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
They know that farmers once again are stuck with grain in their
bins and in piles on the ground because they cannot move it. The
system is not working. It is failing from one end to the other.
I have many farmers in my constituency who will not be able to
seed a crop this spring because they have not been able to sell last
year's crop. The system is broken. Grain is not moving. It is sitting
in bins. It is sitting in piles on the ground and these farmers are
desperate for money.
What have members opposite done to head off this problem,
which was most predictable? I predicted it in committee and in the
House when we debated every one of the pieces of legislation that
should have made things better for farmers when they are moving
grain. They did not.
8544
When the government called for eliminating the Crow benefit,
we called for changes that would put competition into the system
before the act was passed, before the subsidy was removed. We
called for a system of incentives and penalties to be put in place
so that we would know grain would be moving as it should be
moving. Reform called for changes that would ensure that the
system would work before the money was taken away. This
government ignored our calls for change. As a result it was very
predictable, once again in western Canada, we would end up with
a situation where grain is not moving and farmers are wondering
where they are going to get the money to seed their crops this
spring. There will be many who just will not have the money.
(1815)
The banks are not going to lend them the money this spring
because it has been too many years where grain has not moved and
they do not have the money to make their debt payments on time.
This year is going to be the end of the line for more farmers in my
constituency. I have had some of them come to talk to me about this
issue. It is a frustrating feeling when they ask what can be done and
I say I do not know.
When the Crow benefit was being eliminated we called for these
changes that would have put competition in the system. It would
have made the system work better. It would have made it so that if
the railways did not deliver we could deal with the problem in a
meaningful way.
When the new Canadian transportation act was being put in
place Reform called for changes that would allow captive shippers
to put pressure on CN to make it deliver. The government ignored
those pleas. We called for final offer selection arbitration to be put
into that legislation and it was ignored.
When this government put forth legislation to privatize CN we
called for changes that would have put competition into the system
so that the changes would have been made to make the system work
better before the legislation was passed. Those changes were not
made so here we are today with Group No. 8 amendments once
again calling for changes that would at least help in some small
way to alleviate the problems that have arisen. This government
has acted completely irresponsibly in the past legislation.
If another example is needed of how the government has acted
irresponsibly, at the transport committee the chair, the Liberal
member for Winnipeg South, when the change was proposed that
would have made it so that farmers would not be held hostage to
these huge pilot fees, thousands of dollars a day going to a pilot to
help guide the ships through the St. Lawrence Seaway system, and
the Bloc MPs said they did not want this to change because it is
good for people in Montreal, the chair of the committee and the
Bloc left-this was just before the Christmas break-and the
member for Winnipeg South made a deal. As a result farmers are
still left paying this absolutely atrocious pilot fee for every ship
moving through the St. Lawrence system and that is just
unforgivable. We have had these things that have been done wrong
over the last three and a half years.
I believe that the Reform has put forth constructive
recommendations to make things work better. We are doing that
once again with these Group No. 8 amendments. At least we can
help make up for some of the lack of action over the past three and
a half years and make it so that we will not have strikes or lockouts
in the system so that farmers' grain and the commodities from
other captive shippers will move right through to port and indeed
until they are loaded on ships and out of port.
We cannot afford to keep building this reputation of being an
unreliable suppler of goods. Things are so bad in the grain industry,
because of stoppages, because Canada has not been able to supply
time after time grain that the customers have ships waiting for, that
customers are giving up on us. They are going south to Seattle to
other ports where they know the commodity will be delivered when
it should be delivered. Canada is no longer a reliable shipper. Japan
and other countries that pay top dollar for our commodities are
giving up on us.
(1820 )
So who are the losers? The Canadian business people, farmers
and people in other industries who depend on the system to work to
get their commodity from the producer to the ships loaded for
market.
Western Canadian grain farmers are tired of this happening again
and again. It was so predictable and we did predict it. We said
changes had to be made to fix up the car allocation system and put
in place a system of incentives and penalties as in the case of the
privatization of CN and the Canadian transportation act, using final
offer selection arbitration to make sure that stoppages are not
allowed to happen. That is just about the fairest method we can use.
We are not talking about ending the collective bargaining
process. We are talking about making the collective bargaining
process work better. That is what final offer selection arbitration
does. It gives workers and management a chance to work things
through. Hopefully things will never get to a point where there will
be a need for final offer selection arbitration.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
certainly getting an opportunity to speak to final offer arbitration
today and it is a good thing.
I would like to begin by saying that I do not want the government
to see us as being too soft an opposition. It has always been my
point that we should not oppose simply to oppose. We agreed to
extend the hours on a gentlemen's agreement. Members are here in
the Chamber to deal with legislation. Our intention is to improve
the legislation, not simply to oppose for the sake of opposition.
8545
I would like to point out something the member for
Hillsborough said in his remarks. He said he felt this was doing
away with the collective bargaining process. I could not disagree
with him more. As a matter of fact, every time back to work
legislation is used in the House the bargaining process is usurped.
It is not served well by back to work legislation and I think exactly
the opposite is true of final offer selection arbitration.
Just in case there is still some misunderstanding between the
member for Hillsborough and me on this point, I would not mind
going over it one more time. We have advocated a final offer
selection arbitration not as a tool to strengthen one bargainer's
hand over another but one that can be used equally. As I pointed out
the last time I spoke to this, when used to its ultimate, it is not used
at all.
Both labour and management know there is no such thing as a
long strike duration under these circumstances because Parliament
will have pressure applied to deal with back to work legislation,
which none of us cares to do. I do not think there is a member in the
House who enjoys having to deal with back to work legislation. So
why do we do it over and over again? Why not adopt a measure that
will actually enhance the bargaining process, present the tools so
that disputes can be settled by the parties rather than by others,
which is always the best resolution.
I could go on and on about the good points of final offer selection
arbitration. Suffice it to say we see this as something that will
enhance the process. I cannot emphasize that enough.
I know the hon. member for Hillsborough has his political points
to score, but he must admit at some point that this is a reasonable
solution to a problem facing Canadian shippers and has a
tremendous impact on the Canadian economy.
(1825 )
As I mentioned the last time I spoke to final offer arbitration,
healthy economies and particularly primary economies create
healthy job situations. With primary economies there are endless
opportunities for value added. If we have problems shipping our
commodities then we have problems, as my colleague from
Vegreville pointed out, with production of commodities. In the case
of a farmer, if he cannot sell his crop-he has to have input costs
for the next year-if he cannot get the cash flow for the input costs
he is really in a catch-22 situation. Not only is that farmer in a bad
situation but the people who are employed as a spin-off from the
agriculture are in a bad situation as well.
When that happens then ultimately the Government of Canada,
which is in a rather precarious situation as far as finances are
concerned and needs every penny of revenue that it can get, is also
in a precarious situation because those people who are not working
are certainly not paying taxes.
That is kind of a roundabout way, but it all fits together as far as
resolving the work stoppages whether they are lockouts or whether
they are strikes. A work stoppage is a work stoppage and it
ultimately interferes with getting the product to market. And
getting the product to market is what drives our economy. It is what
keeps our economy rolling, and the spin-off benefits from all these
primary sectors, certainly in the value added area, are very
significant.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is Motion No. 26. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is Motion No. 42. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
8546
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
We will now proceed to debate on motions in Group No. 9.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 29 the
following:
``(9) Nothing in this section authorizes an employer to use the services of a person
who was not an employee in the bargaining unit at the commencement of the strike
or lock- out to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit
on strike or locked out.''
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by deleting lines 35 to 46 on page 32.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 32
with the following:
``behalf of an employer shall use the services of a person''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 33 the following:
``42.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 94:
94.1(1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, thereby
undermining a trade union's representational capacity, the services of a person who
was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain
collectively was given and who was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or
part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.
(2) The use by an employer of the services of a person described in subsection (1)
is deemed to undermine the trade union's representational capacity.
(3) Where a trade union alleges that an employer has contravened subsection (1),
the burden of proof that the use by the employer of the services of a person described
in subsection (1) does not undermine the trade union's representational capacity is
on the employer.
(4) In any case arising under section 87.4, no employer or person acting on behalf
of an employer shall use the services of a person who was not an employee in the
bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and
who was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an
employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.''
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 33 on page 35.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this group
contains an essential motion by the Bloc, one which ought to have
come from the government itself. I refer to the proposal to prohibit
replacement workers, or ``scabs'', the anti-scab or anti-replacement
worker clause.
This clause is sorely lacking in a bill which has pretensions of
being modern, which is supposed to establish new working
conditions for businesses which require worker participation if
they are to be productive. If one reads current management
manuals, that is what they all say, but the revamped labour code
will not have that effect, but indeed the opposite.
The fact that there is no clause, no section to prevent the use of
replacement workers-their use is legalized to some extent
instead-accentuates the temptation to resort to violence to solve
problems. This is found throughout the code, which is decidedly far
from modern.
As I have said several times already, and I repeat, in 1977 the
Parti Quebecois of the time, and its Minister of Labour,
Pierre-Marc Johnson, adopted anti-strikebreaker legislation despite
the loud objections of a number of employers. These clauses
brought about the social peace for which everyone today takes the
credit.
When Premier Bourassa was re-elected in 1985, he was
pressured by employers to drop the clause, which had been adopted
by the Parti Quebecois, but he took care not to do so.
(1830)
He told employers in no uncertain terms that labour peace was
now a fact, that it was worth a lot and that government was not
about to backtrack and reinstate conditions that had led to violent
strikes that went on forever.
I used the word violent, and we should realize that when workers
have a union, often after a hard time getting certification, and the
bargaining process is unsuccessful, they must go on strike. For
instance, when there is a strike and workers see that other workers
are being hired-I have nothing against people who take that kind
of job because we know jobs are scarce-to replace those who are
8547
on strike because they want to improve their circumstances and get
the respect and the recognition their union deserves.
When other workers are hired to replace these strikers, to
remove any leverage they have, to ensure that goods produced
before the strike are shipped or whatever else has to be done,
inevitably some workers are going to get very angry. When these
strikes go on for any length of time, circumstances may cause them
to do things they should not.
For society as a whole, using replacement workers is bad, it sets
a poor example and adversely effects labour relations. If there is a
settlement, there may be deep wounds that leave lasting scars. This
has nothing to do with what we call new labour relations. This is
more like the law of the jungle.
So a labour code does what? It tries to make the bargaining
process as civilized as possible. At this point I can inform hon.
members who think they can solve everything with their final offer
that they have not the remotest idea what labour relations are all
about. We must recognize the fact that in a company, especially in
big companies and increasingly in small businesses, workers want
to bargain collectively with their employer, and for this purpose
they want to be recognized as a unit. The unit can then negotiate in
good faith with the employer and, if need be, avail itself of the right
to strike.
However, they want to negotiate on the basis of their own needs,
and not play heads or tails with the employer's proposals and some
union plan. It would take too long to explain that this can never be a
solution and can never replace the bargaining process.
To get back to replacement workers, there is a huge gap in this
bill, and in committee we again begged the government to do
something and we made our own proposals to ensure that at the
very least, when essential services are at stake, the use of
replacement workers is prohibited.
Here, however, the bill is so twisted that an employer, and I have
read the text over and over, could both force strikers to work in
order to provide essential services and use replacement workers.
(1835)
This would be one of those moments of conflict I mentioned that
nobody should have to face.
Unfortunately, this bill recognizes replacement workers and does
not prohibit their use, even in this totally untenable situation where
strikers in essential services would have to work together with
replacement workers. The only provision we can view positively to
any extent, and I hesitate to say so, because the other omissions are
so serious that the fact of saying that the workers in the bargaining
unit before the replacement workers must be rehired will not soothe
many wounds.
It is sad, more than sad, it is shocking to see that, when the
minister promised-and it is a promise that affected the promise to
modernize the Canada Labour Code-rather than modernize the
Canada Labour Code, instead of adapting it to new labour relations,
to permit new labour relations, instead of considering unions for
what they are-ever more reasonable partners in the management
of businesses-the Canadian code establishes rules that will
quickly bring back the law of the jungle, repeatedly throughout the
bill.
It is sad and shocking, but worse than that, it will produce effects
the government will regret. However, it is not the government that
will regret it, but rather the people who will have to deal with it.
That is the really annoying part.
In closing, I would simply like to say that, as far as employment
insurance is concerned, we predicted there would be a mountain of
problems. Now we have them, and the minister, in a panic, is
forced to announce improvements here and there, because, quite
simply, it did not make sense. The government does not listen. It is
arrogant; it thinks it knows everything and produces bill after bill
that even it knows will not achieve the aims set for them.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about replacement workers and how the CIRB will be the
sole determiner of whether or not replacement workers can be
utilized.
This is one of those situations that I would say is neither fish nor
fowl. It is not a replacement worker ban and it is not a wide open
market either. It is rather putting the responsibility on to the CIRB
which I am sure will be very heavily lobbied by union
representatives to see any sort of action taken by the employer as
being detrimental to the union.
This is a serious infringement of employers' rights. It is sort of
de facto anti-replacement worker legislation and yet it is not.
On November 5, 1996 the Globe and Mail quoted Nancy Riche
as saying:
I would go so far as to suggest that anybody who does work for a member union
understands the representative capacity of a union.
(1840 )
She went on to say:
None of the bureaucrats are going to agree with me but we will have to wait and
see. The new board will rule.
8548
They will do everything they can to say that the employer has
taken action that will somehow undermine the union. They will
pressure the board to find in their favour.
I understand the Bloc has put a lot of pressure on the government
to come up with this idea. While the Bloc would have us believe
that nothing but a total replacement worker ban would be
sufficient, in true level fashion it has found some way to do it in a
half-hearted manner and turn it over to the CIRB which very likely
does not particularly want this aspect of the bill. I should not
speculate but it is very tempting to do so.
There are ultimate tools, the strike being one and the lockout
being another. Then there are lesser tools that both management
and labour have. One of the tools that management has is the right
to continue to operate when labour services have been withdrawn.
We will hear people trying to rationalize that anti-replacement
worker legislation leads to far more harmonious labour
negotiations than no anti-replacement worker legislation. That
does not always bear out. As a matter of fact they would be hard
pressed to prove that point to me.
I refer back to the Sims task force entitled ``Seeking a Balance''.
This is not part of the balance. This is a lopsided balance.
Replacement worker legislation does not level the playing field.
Anti-replacement worker legislation tips the scale on the side of
labour.
If Bloc members use the model they are used to at home in the
province of Quebec, they would say there must be a total, outright
ban on replacement workers. That is the difference between a
totally labour oriented party and one that is not totally labour
oriented. Certainly labour should have rights, the right to strike, the
right to withdraw services, the right to organize peacefully and so
forth. The Reform Party admits that and agrees.
We must never get into a situation where labour can hold
management hostage or where management can hold labour
hostage. If we are truly seeking a balance we would accept the
amendment the Reform has put forth today requesting that the
provisions for anti-replacement worker legislation be withdrawn
from the bill.
As I mentioned before, the CIRB will be charged with making a
decision and will be pretty busy. It will receive a lot of
representation from the labour unions that any use of management
or anybody who tries to run the shop because labour has been
withdrawn undermines the representational capacity of the union.
(1845)
Here again, I do not want to prejudge what the board is likely to
do. We saw an example in Ontario not very long ago where a
similar board decided in favour of labour. A union was certified.
The latest vote was 151 against certification and 43 in favour.
If that is any indication of how the CIRB would operate, it is
incumbent on us to accept Reform's amendment and withdraw that
section of the code.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am in agreement with my Reform colleague's speech on
one point, the fact that our amendment concerning replacement
workers says a lot about the kind of party we are.
We must admit that there is a lack of courage on the government
side, since this does take courage. When government members
were in the opposition, they were vociferous, they spared no
energy, no word was strong enough to demand provisions
prohibiting replacement workers.
Of the Reform Party we must say that it is not courage it lacks,
but sensitivity. If it had not been for the Bloc Quebecois, this issue
would not have been raised during today's debate.
The issue of replacement workers is not a recent concern for the
Bloc Quebecois. The member for Richelieu introduced a private
member's bill dealing with this very thing. The member for
Bourassa and the member for Saint-Laurent followed suit.
It is incredible that we still have to justify, to explain why
antiscab legislation, which prohibits the use of replacement
workers, is an element of paramount importance to the balance we
must always strive for in labour relations.
Why is a piece of legislation banning the use of replacement
workers so important? Because it has to do with the violence and
the length of labour disputes. Recently I looked at some statistics
compiled by a professor of industrial relations regarding the bill
passed in 1977 in Quebec. I had to laugh when the minister told us
in committee that since there was no consensus we could not
proceed. Do you think for one moment that there was a consensus
in Quebec in 1977 when the government of René Lévesque, a most
courageous man, decided to go ahead? Of course not.
Contrary to some of my colleagues, I was not very old in those
days. If you recall, in 1977, when the Lévesque government went
ahead with this, the Conseil du patronat threatened to go to court,
the Liberal Party believed that it would be the first shot in a civil
war. There was an atmosphere of fear that was nurtured by some
very specific, clear-cut groups, whose immediate interest it served.
But once the Liberals were in office, do you think they
challenged the antiscab legislation? Of course not. They realized it
could not only make disputes more civilized, but also allow some
kind of balance to be struck.
8549
It takes some doing to come and tell us today that they could
not go ahead because there was no consensus, because the
necessary conditions were not met.
(1850)
If this government had had the courage of its convictions and had
stood by the positions taken when it sat on this side of the House, it
would have endorsed the amendment proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois. But it is not going to happen now because, on this issue
as on many others, the members opposite lack the political courage
required to take a position of their own.
A study conducted by a number of industrial relations experts
shows that, Quebec in particular, but three other provinces as well,
still have, for the most part, antiscab provisions. There was
Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario. This meant that 50 per cent of
Canada's labour force was protected by antiscab legislation.
When there are laws such as the ones I am describing, conflicts
are resolved more quickly. This goes without saying, because the
legislation forces the parties to negotiate. It also results in less
violence. In those provinces where there are antiscab laws, the
duration of conflicts was, on average, 35 per cent shorter than
elsewhere. This means something after all. Yet, this Parliament still
refuses to accept Quebec's position, which could have been
beneficial to all workers.
What is worse is the hybrid, half-baked formula being proposed
by the government, which thinks that the Canada Labour Relations
Board will have to develop regulations and guidelines that woul
allow it, when the union's representation duty will be undermined,
to issue an order providing that replacement workers cannot be
used.
We cannot imagine a more weird and crazy scenario than the one
proposed by the government. At what point will it be determined
that a union's ability to represent its members has been
undermined? Is the objective to prohibit the use of replacement
workers? This is absolutely crazy. It does not make any sense. No
witness said anything of the sort. Could the minister tell us who,
among university professors, unions, militants and workers,
supported such a solution? Of course not, because it is a hybrid
solution where one tries to play both ends against the middle, as is
too often the case with the legislation put forward by the
government.
It is rather disappointing and we would have liked for the
government to take into consideration what is being done in the
Province of Quebec, where section 109 of the Quebec Labour Code
recognizes as an unfair practice the use of replacement workers by
an employer. The Canada Labour Code clearly defines what is an
unfair practice. An unfair practice, as defined, is an allegation that
an employer, a trade union or an individual has taken part in an
activity that is prohibited pursuant to the Canada Labour Code.
And then a number of examples are given. At least six of them are
traditionally linked to unfair practices.
Section 24 stipulates that no employer shall, after notification
that the application for certification has been made, alter the
conditions of employment, since this is considered an unfair
practice. To negotiate in bad faith is clearly an unfair practice. We
saw, closer to home, that such a recourse can be used. In the dispute
opposing them to Air Canada and national airlines, regional
carriers Air BC, Air Nova, Air Ontario and Air Alliance invoked
section 50 in referring to the last negotiations.
A third example is employer interference in union business. It is
also prohibited as an unfair practice.
(1855)
For the union, failure to provide fair representation can be cause
for legal action, as can failure to provide members with financial
statements, although a bit unusual, and a certain number of
prohibitions set out in section 95.
Since our historic entry into the House of Commons-and you
will not often see an official opposition as dynamic as the one
before you-we have made representations to successive labour
ministers in order to ensure that our message is heard. One day, we
will leave this Parliament and we will speak as equals within a true
partnership. We would have liked, as a team of parliamentarians, to
be able to say with pride that one of the contributions we made to
this debate, a milestone in our time as the Bloc Quebecois team in
the House of Commons, has been to convince English Canada and
the government of the need to make labour relations more civilized
and to adopt anti-scab legislation.
We are not admitting defeat. There are still a few weeks left
before we are, perhaps, able to ask Quebecers once again for their
vote. There will be another referendum, that is certain. I see the
member from British Columbia, who has very definite ideas on a
number of topics I would prefer not to get into. I can and I wish to
tell her personally not to force me to go door to door in her riding.
She knows very well that I am particularly fond of Vancouver.
I do not know if this is a human being in front of me. I heard loud
shouts coming awfully close-
The Deputy Chairman: Unfortunately, the member's time is
up.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will speak
to the Group No. 9 amendments. Many people over the last four
years since I became involved in politics, and even before, have
told me that unions are a bad thing and if they had their way they
would outlaw unions completely. I have had many people tell me
8550
that unions are so powerful they do extreme harm to the economy.
I respond to them by saying that I do not agree at all.
I believe that unions play a very useful role. I believe that
collective bargaining must be allowed to take place wherever it
possibly can. I believe that under certain circumstances we have to
find a more efficient and more useful mechanism for solving a
problem. Those are cases when innocent victims are involved who
are neither labour or management. Of course several different
groups fall into this category, grain farmers among them.
When members of the Bloc say that in all cases labour and
management have to work it out no matter how long the strike
might last, are they really thinking about the other people who are
involved in certain situations? In particular, people who in many
cases in the past have lost their businesses, their farms, have
suffered severe economic hardship as a result of both sides, labour
and management, causing stoppages.
(1900 )
This is the case with grain farmers and any other captive
shippers. We have to take a look at solutions to the problem of one
disruption after another which are usually settled by back to work
legislation. Such legislation without a doubt does not involve
labour-management negotiations.
In the grain handling industry 19 times in the last 20 years the
House has brought in back to work legislation to end a dispute.
Labour and management have given up on the process. We have
proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration so that there
will be no work stoppage and so that labour and management do
negotiate to the final agreement, hopefully never using the final
offer selection arbitration. However, knowing it is there is
important.
This group of amendments deals with replacement workers. Of
course members of the Block feel, and I think I am being fair, that
there should be no case where replacement workers can be used. I
believe in Quebec it is the law that replacement workers cannot be
used.
The legislation does not say that replacement workers will not be
used. Instead in a roundabout way it states that the Canada
Industrial Relations Board will decide whether replacement
workers will be allowed or not. It is very unclear to labour and
management what situations would warrant the Canada Industrial
Relations Board's deciding whether replacement workers would be
used. This kind of uncertainty cannot possibly be good for labour
or management. Therefore we cannot support any of these
amendments that would outlaw the use of replacement workers
entirely.
While we do want the collective bargaining process to take
place, I have defended it to many people who say that it should be
outlawed, that the unions are just too powerful and harm the
economy. I have defended the absolute necessity for collective
bargaining to be available to labour and management and I will
continue to defend it. However, there are situations where we must
be able to get round it.
Certainly this solution of using the Canada Industrial Relations
Board to determine when replacement workers should be allowed
is totally unacceptable.
It should be obvious to members of the government and of the
Bloc that the way to solve the problem is to never have these work
stoppages in the first place, especially in industries where innocent
victims are the ones who pay the dearest price. Of course, grain
farmers are one group that has paid the price 19 times in the last 20
years. It has cost many of them their businesses and their livelihood
of choice as a result of these continual work stoppages in which
they have no say. They are left out. They truly are innocent victims.
In cases where there is a captive shipper or a group of victims the
obvious solution is to never let the stoppage take place. We have
suggested using final offer selection arbitration as a way of
providing that outcome.
This group of amendments is one that would not be supported by
farmers. I do not think we would find one farmer in western Canada
who would support this amendment that would outlaw replacement
workers.
(1905)
I have some letters from constituents who said things like this.
One is from Myron Zajic from Edgerton, Alberta in my
constituency: ``I am writing to you in support of the amendments to
the labour code which prohibit the longshoremen from striking in
Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I am an Alberta grain farmer and I
have been appalled by the number of times we have been held
hostage over grain handling disputes at the west coast. To maintain
our foreign markets and to keep the flow of grain moving and keep
our agriculture economy going we must stop these interruptions.
Please support this amendment''.
The next one is from Dale Hallett from my constituency who
made this comment about labour disputes on the west coast:
``Labour disputes on the west coast, one, disrupt the flow of grain;
two, increase direct cost to grain producers; three, damage
Canada's reputation in world markets;'' a very important point that
he has brought up, ``and four, impair the economy of Canada and
western Canada in particular''. He said support that amendment.
I have a stack of letters of people who have said to support that
amendment. They certainly would not be telling us to support Bill
C-66 if they knew that part of this bill gave that kind of power, the
kind of power to outlaw the use of replacement workers, put into
the hands of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. They would
not support any piece of legislation that would do that. They will
not support this piece of legislation for that reason and others.
8551
If we can get our amendment supported which would put in
place final offer selection arbitration, it changes the game. That
would prevent many of these stoppages and would help to solve
the problem for the long term, not just tinkering. This legislation
does provide a bit of useful tinkering in that it would at least
ensure that grain which reached the coast would be loaded but it
has no impact whatsoever on getting that grain from the local
elevator to the coast in the first place.
It does not solve the problem and on balance when we look at
this group of amendments and the other group of amendments it is
going to take that final offer selection amendment to be supported
for this legislation to really provide any positive change at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the subject
under discussion is one very close to my heart. The replacement
worker question is one that has been long debated in our society
and one that has been solved in Quebec and in British Columbia.
Unfortunately, in Ontario the legislation was repealed.
My major criticism of Bill C-66 is its lack of real
anti-strikebreaker clauses. The minister tells us that the Sims
commission was unable to reach a consensus, but there has never
been a consensus anywhere on anti-scab legislation. The
government must have the courage to table a bill on replacement
workers. I shall come back to this later. Professor Rodrigue Blouin
tabled a minority report in which he comes out clearly against
replacement workers and in favour of anti-scab legislation.
The minister tells us that there was no consensus, and that is
true-there never will be. He must get moving and have the
courage to table a true anti-scab bill. I believe that a consensus is
developing in this House. Last year, we voted on an anti-scab bill
and it was very narrowly defeated. Some Liberal members even
voted in favour of this bill, which had been introduced by a
member of the Bloc Quebecois.
(1910)
The absence of anti-scab provisions proves that the Liberal Party
of Canada, that this government has moved to the right. This
government listens more and more to employers and less and less
to the labour movement, the unions and the workers.
The Bloc Quebecois is the only party that truly defends the
interests of the workers. It is the only party that voted against back-
to-work legislation for railway workers. Of course the Reform
Party is against anti-scab provisions. This party represents the
right, the extreme right of Canada.
The bill prohibits the employer from introducing practices aimed
at undermining the ability of a union that is on strike or locked out
to represent its members. In what cases will these provisions
apply? We do not know. We can give an example. If an employer
refuses to bargain while using scabs, the Canada Industrial
Relations Board may prohibit the use of scabs.
Proving a case is very difficult. It must be done before the
Canada Industrial Relations Board. It must be proven that it is an
unfair practice. The notion of unfair practices will vary depending
on the case and the circumstances. Furthermore, this practice must
aim to undermine the ability of the union to represent its members.
In what cases, in what circumstances? We do not know this either.
Anti-scab provisions, and this has been proven in Quebec and
British Columbia, and in Ontario when it still had such provisions,
contribute to labour peace and make for better labour relations.
Their absence contributes to violence on the picket line. We have
seen that wherever there are strikes and employers use strike
breakers there is violence on the picket lines.
I saw it at the Ogilvie flour mills in Montreal, a few months ago,
at Pratt and Whitney in Longueuil, at Westinghouse. There was
confrontation between the company's permanent employees and
the strike breakers from outside replacing them, confrontation that
was brutal at times.
I am sensitive to this. I felt it important to introduce a bill, Bill
C-338, to prevent the use of strike breakers. It is also meant to
protect the employer in certain circumstances, and provides for
maintaining essential services in a company.
A balance must be maintained between the parties, when
negotiations are going on. Generally, the employer is in the better
position, with its management rights, and workers and unions are
not so well off. Anti strike breaking legislation restores the power
relationships between the parties in negotiation.
In 1976, the Government of Quebec had the courage to introduce
a bill, which came into force in 1977. As the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has just pointed out, management
opposition was fierce. Everywhere, everyone was expecting the
worst. Nothing happened.
(1915)
Quite the contrary, antiscab provisions in Quebec have
contributed to shorten work disputes. There is less violence on
picket lines and we have unprecedented labour peace. I believe it is
also the case in British Columbia.
There were also such antiscab provisions in Ontario, but the new
Conservative government, which represents the interests of
employers and the right wing, has unfortunately repealed those
provisions. I think this decision will be proven wrong in the future
and there will be more conflict, more violence. Disputes will be
harsher in the absence of antiscab provisions.
8552
I said earlier that members of the Sims task force could not
agree on antiscab provisions. Naturally, two members, Sims first,
decided that it was not a good idea to introduce antiscab
provisions. There was also Professor Rodrigue Blouin, from Laval
University, who incidentally is one of the key experts in industrial
relations in Quebec, in Canada and in North America.
He is one of the most well-known arbitrators in Quebec and says
in his minority report: ``I submit that the general principles
underlying our system of collective labour relations are such that
the presence of replacement workers during a legal strike or
lockout is illegitimate''. This is taken from page 138 of the report
``Seeking a Balance'', the review of part I of the Canada Labour
Code.
He continues on page 154, saying: ``The possibility of a strike or
a lockout still remains the cornerstone of the collective bargaining
system today. However, this economic confrontation is only
possible between two clearly identified parties that are under the
obligation to bargain in good faith. Therefore, as soon as a
bargaining agent is certified, the employer of the workers that are
being represented can no longer refuse to negotiate a collective
agreement, but this does not necessarily mean that he has to reach
one. After a certain period of formal negotiations, there may be, in
the absence of a settlement, a break up in the collective dialogue
and a setting off of an economic conflict. At no time during this
process a third party may intervene, except in the cases specifically
provided for by the legislation''.
I submit to you that Professor Blouin is very well acquainted
with the situation in Quebec, which has been a very positive
experience. The results have been exceptional and no one in
Quebec is thinking about repealing the legislation, not even the
employers who had campaigned against it. We have some statistics
showing that the industrial relations situation has greatly improved
in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words on group No. 9
of the report stage amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
I very much support the comments made by the hon. member for
Mercier, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and the
hon. member for Bourassa regarding replacement workers. I
support their Motions Nos. 27 and 40 in this group. I hope they will
support my Motion No. 38 which is also in this group.
The issue of replacement workers, that is anti-scab legislation, is
important in the context of Canada Labour Code amendments. The
minister has received a great deal of information regarding the
prohibition of replacement workers. To me and my colleagues in
the New Democratic Party, the minister should have taken steps to
outright prohibit the use of replacement workers.
(1920)
Like our friends in the labour movement, New Democrats are
deeply disappointed that Bill C-66 does not contain a general
prohibition on the use of replacement workers.
The object for us must be to end a practice that subjects trade
union members to insult and unfairness and stacks the labour
relations deck in favour of management.
During testimony before the standing committee which studied
Bill C-66 the CLC said it held strongly the view that strikes and
lockouts accompanied by the employer's use of replacement
workers give rise to several negative and unnecessary strains on the
labour-management relationship.
These include prolonged and more bitter conflicts, more strikes
and lockouts, increased picket line confrontations and violence,
less free and meaningful collective bargaining, problems that
render resolution of the dispute more difficult.
In addition to a specific amendment such as the one I have put
before the House today, New Democratic Party MPs and the CLC
have long advocated a prohibition on the use of replacement
workers during a strike or lockout that would contain a very few
specific elements.
These elements include the prohibition of the use of both
bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees or any person
including those persons who exercise managerial functions; the
prohibition of the use of persons engaged, transferred or hired after
the earlier of the date on which the notice of desire to bargain is
given and the date on which bargaining begins; the prohibition of
contracting work in or out of the establishment; the providing of
protection from discipline for any person who honours the picket
line; and the development of an enforcement mechanism that
would include permission for the union to enter and inspect the
employer's premises in the company of a government labour
relations officer and representative of the employer.
Opponents of a replacement worker prohibition frequently raise
the spectre of increased unemployment, incidents of strikes and
imbalance of bargaining power.
The province with the longest experience with an anti-scab
provision is the province of Quebec where the evidence does not
support bargaining power imbalance as reflected in wage
settlement.
In the 17 years, that is 1978 to 1994 inclusive following the
introduction of anti-scab provisions, increases in basic wage rates
and collective agreements in Quebec were higher than the
Canadian average in only six years.
It is perhaps not surprising the task force member from Quebec,
Mr. Rodrigue Blouin, having witnessed first hand the province's
experience with anti-scab legislation, was the one who issued an
8553
eloquent minority report advocating a prohibition. His opening
comments in that minority report are quite strong.
As quoted earlier, Mr. Rodrigue Blouin indicated:
I submit that the general principles underlying our system of collective labour
relations dictate that the presence of replacement workers during a legal strike or
lockout is illegitimate. Their use must hence be declared illegal.
Let me continue that quote for just a moment:
The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure
the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system by introducing a foreign
body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic
balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a
strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute and leads
eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.
I continue the quote:
The conclusion to be drawn from my analysis is that there is on the whole a
situation of illegitimacy that Parliament must condemn in no uncertain terms.
I have read very carefully the minority report of Mr. Blouin. I am
quite taken by his analysis and his conclusion which reads:
Parliament has a duty to restore the delicate balance necessary to ensure that the
collective bargaining system achieves its purpose. The presence of replacement
workers is an intrusion into an economic dispute that takes place in the workplace in
accordance with a public policy designed to promote industrial democracy. This
policy is negated by replacement workers.
(1925)
I am reminded of the minister's own testimony before the
standing committee in this regard. In responding to questions from
committee members, the minister said that an important priority of
the government was to let the collective bargaining process
function. I argued, just as did Mr. Blouin, that the one element of
the legislation which prevented collective bargaining from
functioning well was the provision about replacement workers.
That is why I support an outright prohibition on the use of
replacement workers. That is why I have proposed and am
supporting the amendments in front of us today in this grouping
which, if passed, would for all intents and purposes prohibit the use
of the services of a person who was not an employee in the
bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively
was given.
The Sims report highlights several high profile disputes in the
federal sector, including the dispute at Giant Mines in Yellowknife
with its tragic circumstances and Canada Post's use of replacement
workers in 1991 which resulted in several confrontations.
Sims, however, does not recommend the prohibition of
replacement workers because he believes measures to mitigate the
threat to job loss that replacement workers pose will be sufficient
to prevent potential violence on the picket line. There is very little
evidence to support that contention despite the compromise Sims
proposes is acceptable in the absence of an outright prohibition.
In conclusion, I was greatly disappointed the government in the
initial drafting of Bill C-66 or in the amendment process of the
standing committee did not provide for a general ban on scabs in
the amendments to the federal labour code. The government had
the opportunity to end the confrontations in strikes and lockouts but
failed to grasp this opportunity.
Obviously 20 years of history of such legislation in the province
of Quebec provides the necessary information we need to assess its
worthiness. It is time the federal government took the necessary
steps to ban replacement workers from disputes within its own
jurisdiction. The amendments before us provide the opportunity to
do just that. I urge their support.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you listened over the last while to the
speeches of members from all sides. You will understand that one
of the most sensitive issues we had to look at as we drafted
amendments to the code was without a doubt the issue of
replacement workers. As has been said by almost everyone, not
only did it divide labour and management but the members of the
task force were unable to reach a consensus on it.
Bill C-66 will not impose a general ban on the use of
replacement workers as requested by the Bloc in its Motion No. 40
and by the NDP in its Motion No. 38. Nevertheless, the code will
not be silent on this matter as the Reform Party proposes in its
MotionNo. 37.
It is important to mention that the unions and employers subject
to the Canada Labour Code, although deeply divided on the
regulation of the use of replacement workers, recognized in their
submissions to the task force that the use of replacement workers
was not a legitimate practice if its purpose was to get rid of union
representation or undermine the role of the union rather than to
achieve an acceptable collective agreement.
When asked to comment on the task force's recommendations,
management and labour while maintaining their opposing positions
on the issue of replacement workers recognized nonetheless that
the majority recommendation of the task force was an acceptable
compromise.
Therefore, under the proposed subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada
Labour Code, if it is demonstrated that the employer is using
replacement workers to undermine the union's representational
capacity, the employer's conduct will constitute an unfair labour
practice. The Canada Industrial Relations Board will be given a
discretionary power to require the employer to stop using
replacement workers for the duration of the dispute.
8554
Some claim that the use of replacement workers could in itself
constitute proof of the employer's intention to undermine the
union's representational capacity. If this was the result the
government had sought, the bill would have been worded to
prohibit the use of replacement workers without making reference
to the employer's purpose in doing so.
(1930)
A number of parties that appeared before the standing committee
claimed that the terminology used to describe this new, unfair
labour practice did not reflect the spirit of the task force majority
recommendation. Specifically, some employers claimed that the
phrase ``undermining a trade union's representational capacity''
was too broad and could be interpreted as prohibiting the use of
replacement workers under any circumstances, regardless of the
employer's purpose in doing so.
They therefore asked that the wording of the bill reflect the task
force majority recommendation and stipulate that employers can
legitimately use replacement workers in pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives. The committee did not act on these requests
for good reason. This new prohibition is worded in the same way as
the other prohibitions in the code referring to improper motivation.
However, the union will have the burden of proving that the
employer's intention in using replacement workers is to undermine
the union's representational capacity and it will not benefit from
the reversal of the burden of proof.
We are confident that the new Canada Industrial Relations
Board, which will draw its membership from management and
labour, will have the necessary expertise to develop criteria for
providing and applying this new provision.
Finally, Motion No. 27 which was put forward by the Bloc
prohibiting the use of replacement workers with bargaining unit
employees has to maintain services necessary to protect the safety
and health of the public. We believe that such prohibition would
only generate unnecessary litigation.
What the proposed amendment envisages is a somewhat bizarre
situation in which an employer not only seeks to have services
maintained by bargaining unit employees, but also to recruit
replacements to work alongside them. Add to this unusual
circumstance a trade union ready to negotiate the maintenance of
services by its members and to accept that they will be working
with replacements doing bargaining unit work. In all an eventuality
which is to say the least unlikely.
If the parties do not agree on the maintenance of services issue, it
will be up to the board to resolve the matters and to decide on a
case by case basis just what services should be maintained, who
should perform them and finally to devise and an order which
makes industrial relation sense.
We therefore ask the members of the House as a fourth
replacement workers provision of Bill C-66 as drafted-as it
represents a fair balance between the parties opposing but
legitimate interests-
the employees right to be represented by a union and negotiate their
working conditions collectively and the employer's right to keep
their business viable during a work stoppage.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the agreement reached earlier
today, all motions in Group No. 9 are deemed to have been put to
the House, and any divisions are deemed to have been requested
and deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 27
stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 37. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 37
stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 40. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
8555
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 40
stands deferred.
[English]
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 10.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 36 the following:
``48.1 Section 107 of the Act is repealed.''
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 36 the following new
Clause:
``48.1 Section 108 of the Act is repealed.''
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 36 the following:
``48.1 The heading before section 108.1 and section 108.1 of the Act are
repealed.''
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-66 be amended by adding after the heading ``Public Service Staff
Relations Act'' on page 43 the following:
``80.1 The heading before section 90.1 and section 90.1 of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act are repealed.''
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-66 be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 43 with the
following:
``81. Part I of Schedule I to the Act is amended by''
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Group
No. 10 deals with section 107 and in some ways with section 108 of
the act. Section 107 is the area of the labour code that deals with
ministerial intervention.
I agree with my colleague who introduced this motion that
probably this is not the way to handle this. At the time the problem
arose with the restructuring offer put forward by Canadian Airlines,
we suggested that changes be made to section 108 of the act rather
than have this piecemeal approach where the minister can intervene
and order a vote.
(1935 )
When a restructuring proposal is put forward, we are certainly
not advocating that the collective bargaining process be usurped in
any way. We are saying that it was not obvious to us which way
Canadian employees would vote, but it was entirely obvious to us
that they should have the opportunity to do so. It was obvious that
they wanted that opportunity. The rest of their colleagues had the
opportunity to vote on the restructuring proposal and we felt it was
at the very foundation of democracy to allow them to have the vote.
I would agree with my colleague from the Bloc that section 107
could be done away with provided that section 108 is strengthened
to allow union members to vote on a restructuring proposal put
forward by their employer.
I have a private member's motion on the Order Paper that would
strengthen section 108 and would allow employees of any union
the opportunity to vote on a restructuring offer-and I stress the
word restructuring-by their employer.
We have spent quite a lot of time today discussing the grain
shipping aspect of the amendments to this bill. As my colleague
from Vegreville pointed out, I suppose that a lot of people have
encouraged him to vote in favour of the amendment put forward by
the government. At first blush one might say that it is an
improvement, that it appears to guarantee getting our grain to
market. It does not. We know it does not guarantee anything except
that the grain in the terminals would be loaded on to the ships. That
is a point that bears repeating. We want to ensure that it is perfectly
clear.
As far as sections 107 and 108 are concerned, it is down to a
basic democracy. No road blocks should be put in anyone's way. If
employers want to put a restructuring offer to their employees, then
the employees should have a right to vote on it. There should be no
pressure on them from the government to vote any particular way,
but at least they should have the opportunity to express their views.
If they would like to turn down the restructuring offer, that is well
within their right. They would have to think about the
consequences either way, whether they vote in favour or not in
favour of the restructuring offer.
I know my colleagues would like to speak to this and I believe I
have my remarks on the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with respect
to motions in Group No. 10 amending Bill C-66, I will vote in
favour of the motion eliminating the minister's power to order a
vote on the employer's final offers. I fully agree with this motion.
To act otherwise would be undue political interference in labour
relations.
8556
Allowing the Minister of Labour to order a vote is contrary to
free bargaining. Normally, the minister, in particular the minister
of this government, will use his powers on the employer's side.
This is why it is unacceptable to give such power to the Minister
of Labour.
(1940)
We must give both parties enough freedom to establish their
power relationship as they see fit. The political authority must not
exercice undue pressure on the unions. Only the unions, in
particular the negotiating teams, must determine the right moment
to submit offers to their membership.
In closing, I would like to talk briefly about the preventive
withdrawal from work for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
Unfortunately, there is no provision to amend the Canada Labour
Code to protect pregnant women within the federal public service
or in other jobs under federal jurisdiction.
There is an increasing number of women in the labour market. In
1993, they accounted for 40 per cent of workers, as opposed to only
35 per cent in 1971. Of course, the number of work accidents
involving women has increased since there are more women in the
work force.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has launched a campaign,
which I support, for the introduction of provisions in the Canada
Labour Code to ensure healthy working conditions for a pregnant
woman or a nursing mother by reassigning her, within the
reasonable limits of her abilities, to jobs that pose no threat to her,
the foetus or the child she is nursing. We must reduce the risks that
can affect both the parents and their children.
The whole issue of working conditions that can have a
detrimental effect on the reproductive system has been neglected
for too long. The effects of work on pregnancy, including on the
health of the mother who experiences important physiological
changes and on the health of the foetus, have not been given serious
consideration. Not much more attention has been paid to the
relationship between work and sterility, miscarriages and birth
defects.
If we improve working conditions so that pregnant or nursing
women can work without risk, all workers will be better for it.
When risks associated with a pregnant or nursing woman's job
cannot be remedied, measures will have to be taken to make
reassignment possible for the whole pregnancy or nursing period.
Otherwise, the pregnant or nursing woman must be entitled to paid
leave until the end of her pregnancy or nursing period.
Precautionary cessation of work is a very important issue and I
call upon the government to introduce a legislation on it.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising to speak again on the final group of report
stage amendments to Bill C-66. I am presenting a couple of
amendments which delete sections 107 and 108.1 and a similar
section in the companion act, the Public Service Staff Relations
Act.
One of the amendments before us tonight relates to section 107
of the Canada Labour Code which I am proposing to delete from
the code. Section 107 reads:
The Minister, where he deems it expedient, may do such things as to him seem
likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to
the settlement of industrial disputes or differences and to those ends the Minister may
refer any question to the Board, or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister
deems necessary.
(1945 )
For some members of the House this section will be immediately
recognizable because it is the section of the code that the Minister
of Labour used to justify his interference in the Canadian Airlines
negotiations with its employees who were or are members of the
Canadian auto workers.
I am proposing the deletion of this section of the code today
because there has always been concern that this section could be
wrongly used and the case in point simply proves the point.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member proposing an
amendment?
Mr. Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker, I am simply following the
amendment before us. I am proposing the deletion of this section of
the code because there was concern with the section. It is just as it
was outlined in the text.
The minister's action over this dispute with the Canadian auto
workers and Canadian Airlines substantiates the argument that
labour's rights can be abused if this section of the code is used and
therefore it should be removed from the code to prevent any further
abuse of workers or their rights.
Some have even argued that the use of section 107 in the case of
Canadian Airlines and the CAW was illegal because the parties to
the contract were not in the process of regular collective bargaining
with regard to their contract. However, the fact that this section
could be trotted out and used so quickly to remove any semblance
of real bargaining only proves how dangerous it is if it is to be used
improperly.
I do not want to debate the issue at stake in that dispute to any
length tonight but I do want to remind members of the House, and
those who are listening or watching or who are reading this that the
federal Minister of Labour in the middle of the company's
reorganization negotiations with the union, in this case the CAW,
ordered
8557
the Canadian Labour Relations Board to conduct a vote of CAW
members on a company offer that was still being discussed by the
elected leadership of the union.
The minister used section 107 ``to seek industrial peace'' and in
so doing interfered directly in the negotiations between the
company and its employees. It was an unprecedented move which
throws into doubt the entire collective bargaining process in areas
of federal jurisdiction.
The only way left to guarantee, secure or maintain confidence in
the process is to delete this section of the code so that it can never
be used in this fashion again. It was not only an unprecedented
move but it was also almost impossible to carry out.
The Canadian Labour Relations Board ordered to carry out this
directive, this vote of CAW members, had to scramble like ants
under foot to try to figure out how to do it. Of course, it did not
have to conduct the vote in any case because negotiations
continued and in the end a supportable agreement between
Canadian Airlines, the CAW membership and the Government of
Canada was reached using collective bargaining, using the table for
the discussions.
At the time in the House of Commons I said we were offended by
the decision of the Minister of Labour to force a vote of CAW
members at Canadian Airlines, which we called an unprecedented
and shocking attack on workers' rights. At the same time, we said
we recognized the minister's attempts to use the Canada Labour
Code to protect the bungling of the Minister of Transport who
seemed not to understand the real crisis facing Canadian Airlines or
who chose to ignore it.
I said New Democrats recognized that the real issue at stake at
the time was and still is the stability of an industry which has
demonstrated that it cannot regulate itself. In taking that position I
acknowledged that we care about the jobs at Canadian Airlines. We
cared about the future of the industry but we were concerned that
by focusing only on the concessions being demanded of the
working people that the job and industrial security we all desired
would be lost in the long term.
For those who remember my statement, I concluded by saying
that if the federal government wanted to be involved in Canadian
Airlines restructuring, it should leave the collective bargaining to
the affected parties and go to the table with a real package that
addresses the real problems in the industry. Obviously given the
situation today that is exactly what they should have done then.
The Minister of Labour has said in relation to the amendments to
the Canada Labour Code proposed by the government that the
legislation is here to support the collective bargaining process
within the federal jurisdiction. Obviously section 107 stands in the
way of effective collective bargaining and therefore, by the
minister's own standards, I say it should be removed.
(1950)
Also, in the amendments before us today I am proposing the
removal of section 108.1 for similar reasons. This section was
introduced in December 1992 by the former Conservative
government without warning or consultation with the labour
organizations in Canada. Ironically, the rest of the legislation, Bill
C-101 at the time, into which this section was incorporated, dealt
with matters under Part III of the code, not Part I which we are now
dealing with, which had been subject to extensive consultations
with both labour and management.
Labour took the position then and continues to say today that this
section represents an unwarranted intrusion into the collective
bargaining process by a third party. New Democrats agree. Today,
through our amendment to Bill C-66 on the floor of the House of
Commons, we ask that section 108.1 be deleted. I urge support for
this resolution.
The clause, as I said, was introduced without any consultation.
Implicit in the clause is the belief on the part of the government
that the union or bargaining team does not represent the interests or
the will of the membership. By interfering in the process the
minister is saying that he knows better than the elected and
accountable union executive or bargaining team what is in the best
interests of the union membership at the bargaining table. Such an
anti-democratic interference should have no place in legislation
enacted by the House of Commons.
To suppose an arbitrary decision by the Minister of Labour is a
superior process to the democratic structures of trade unions is
offensive and calls into question the sincerity of the government's
commitment to the collective bargaining process. It calls into
question the commitment of the government to upholding the
rights of the democratic workplace, institutions and trade unions
themselves. It must be repealed.
I should also mention that the existence of this provision in the
code poses a severe threat to the fundamental right of workers to
withdraw their labour. By giving the minister the right to intervene
at any time, including after notice to collective bargaining has been
given, it effectively allows the minister to circumvent the free
collective bargaining process as well as the right to strike.
In conclusion, I submit that under these circumstances I can only
hope that the members of the House who believe in the concept of
free collective bargaining will join me in supporting these
amendments so that these particularly objectionable clauses in the
legislation can be removed.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the series of
motions put forward with a view to repealing a number of current
provisions of the Canada Labour Code. These include, as has been
8558
mentioned, sections 107, 108 and 108.1 of the code, as well as
section 90.1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code authorizes the Minister
of Labour to do things which seem likely to maintain or secure
industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the
settlement of industrial disputes. For those purposes, the minister
may refer questions to the Canada Labour Relations Board or direct
the board to take necessary actions.
During the task force review of Part I of the code, which
included extensive consultations, there were no representations
from either labour or management with respect to section 107 of
the Canada Labour Code. When the Minister of Labour held
consultations, meetings across the country, this section was not
raised.
In November of 1996 the Minister of Labour directed the Canada
Labour Relations Board to conduct a vote among the employees of
Canadian Airlines International, who were represented by the
Canadian auto workers, to determine whether or not they would
accept the restructuring proposals of their employer. The minister's
ability to act last November assisted in the resolution of a serious
situation which threatened the jobs of thousands of workers and the
future of Canadian air carriers.
I believe members would agree that section 107 is a potentially
powerful tool and should be used sparingly when there is no other
apparent avenue to follow. It would, however, be folly to remove
such an option which may offer a solution to those tricky labour
relations problems that occur when the parties find themselves in a
hole and do not know how to stop digging.
The Bloc has also put forward an amendment to repeal section
108 of the Canada Labour Code. This section authorizes the
Minister of Labour to establish an industrial inquiry commission
with the appropriate powers to investigate industrial relations
matters.
I am a little puzzled as to the Bloc's motivation for seeking a
repeal of this provision, as the issue was not raised during the
extensive consultations leading up to the introduction of this bill.
Industrial inquiry commissions have been appointed by
ministers of labour over the years to examine important labour
relations issues and make recommendations. In some cases,
commissions have been instrumental in assisting parties to resolve
difficult issues and conclude collective agreements.
In other cases, commission recommendations have formed the
basis for new industrial relations policy. I fail to see any legitimate
reasons for removing from the code the provision that allows the
Minister of Labour to appoint a commission to inquire into
significant industrial relation issues within federal jurisdiction.
Finally, amendments have been put forward for the repeal of
current provisions in the Canada Labour Code and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act with respect to final offer votes.
Section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code allows the Minister of
Labour to direct that an employer's last offer be put to the
employees of the bargaining unit for a vote if the minister believes
it is in the public interest to do so.
There is an equivalent provision in section 90.1 of the Public
Service Staff Relations Act, the legislation regulating collective
bargaining in the federal public service.
As these provisions have never been used federally, there is no
reasonable basis for seeking their appeal due to misuse. The key
reason invoked by unions in support of repealing this provision was
that they were adopted in 1993 without prior consultations with the
parties.
This is no longer the case. The question of last offer votes was
raised during the extensive consultations with labour, management
and other interested parties prior to the introduction of Bill C-66.
The Sims task force thoroughly examined whether the last offer
vote provision in the code should be modified or repealed. Unions
unanimously sought its repeal while employers asked that the
provision be modified to require a last offer vote in any dispute at
the employer's request, as is the case in a number of jurisdictions.
While the task force reported that it found no convincing
evidence supporting expanding the provision to allow unfettered
employer requests for last offer votes, it also recommended against
repeal of the current provision.
In its view the power of the minister to direct last offer votes
should be retained to be used when there are genuine grounds to
exercise the option in the public interest.
The overall package of recommendations of the Sims task force
was endorsed by both labour and management as balanced. Bill
C-66 respects that balance. The repeal of section 108.1 of the code
was not included in that package and should not be added to this
bill now.
With respect to the equivalent provisions of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act, the task force mandate did not include a review
of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Bill C-66 does not
include any substantive amendments to that act.
To close now, I would like to add my thanks to the people who
took part in the debate today, report stage of Bill C-66.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
8559
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 46. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 47. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief government
whip, the recorded vote is deferred until tomorrow, after
government orders.
[English]
It being eight o'clock, more or less, we stand adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.58 p.m.)