GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADA LABOUR CODE

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

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

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.

[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''

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.

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

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

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

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

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:

``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.

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''

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.

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''

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.''

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''

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;''

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.

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.

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.

* * *

TOBACCO ACT

BILL C-71-NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION

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.

* * *

CANADA LABOUR CODE

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

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

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.

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.

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

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''

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.

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

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

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.

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-

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

* * *

MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of considering of Bill C-66.

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.

* * *

CANADA LABOUR CODE

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:

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,''

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.

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.

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.

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.''

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-66, in Clause 42, be amended by deleting lines 35 to 46 on page 32.

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''

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.''

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 33 on page 35.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

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.''

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''

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.)