moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 19 on page 27 with the following:
“87.2 Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing,
(2) a notice shall not be required to be given by the trade union to the employer indicating the date on which a strike will occur; and
(b) a notice shall not be required to be given by the employer to the trade union indicating the date on which a lockout will occur.”
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 27 with the following:
“seventy-two hours shall not be required to be given by the trade union or the employer if they wish to initiate a strike or lockout.”
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 38 on page 27 and lines 1 to 31 on page 28.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 38 on page 27 with the following:
“87.3 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a trade union may not declare or authorize a strike unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employees in the unit and received the approval of the majority of the employees who voted.
(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employers' organization may not declare or cause a lockout unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employers who are members of the organization and received the approval of the majority of the employers who voted.”
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 28.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 31 on page 28.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 27 on page 28.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues listened carefully and, fortunately, there is a consensus on the amendments that must be made to the Canada Labour Code.
We are interested in how, based on the labour code's provisions, a vote allowing workers to go on strike or employers to initiate a lockout would be held. We object to the procedure, and we wonder where the government got this strange idea.
We feel the government is unduly trying to control, to say the least, the union in terms of how it operates and in terms of its relations with its own members. Indeed, the government is proposing a slew of means and mechanisms that have the effect of controlling the union a little too much, and this is why we are proposing these amendments.
Motion No. 11 reflects our opposition to the 72 hour notice that is required under the bill, and that is supposed to be given by the union in case of a strike or by the employer in case of a lockout.
Through this amendment, we are causing it to be withdrawn because we think there is no need for notice to be given to either party. The party that decides to hold a strike or lockout should decide on the most appropriate time to do so without necessarily being required à because this would become a requirement à to give notice to the other side that it plans to act on its decision.
Also, regarding Motion No. 12, where the 72 hour strike or lockout notice is not acted on, section 87.2(3) provides that a new notice must be given.
If only for reasons of mere logic and consistency, we object to either party having to give a new notice where the strike or lockout initially planned did not occur. That is what Motion No. 12, which we feel will be passed by this House, is all about.
Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 all concern the whole voting mechanism and the notices to be given. Once a vote has been held authorizing the union to initiate a strike, under the new Canada Labour Code as amended by Bill C-19, a strike must be initiated within 60 days of the vote.
We consider this to be an arbitrary, unnecessary deadline, which, as Canadians—which we will probably remain for a short time—would say, could cause serious organizational problems given how huge this country is.
From coast to coast, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, unions could run into serious logistical problems if they had to hold a strike within 60 days of the strike vote. Let us say, for example, that an agreement has almost been reached, and the union has decided not to strike within the 60 days provided under the law. If an agreement is not reached, another strike vote has to be held. Given the breadth of this country, we are not sure that the government is making a wise choice in imposing such a time frame.
We consider that no time period should be provided, that, once the parties have the right to strike or to lockout they may do so when they consider it appropriate, without being overly restricted, as is the case here, by a time frame of 60 days following a strike or lockout vote.
The last motions, namely Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 set out the terms of voting, the conduct of a vote and the procedure for having a vote declared invalid. We have little sympathy for this sort of government intervention in voting activities and in technicalities.
It amounts to inappropriate intrusion in the operations of the union. I think they are going after the unions. There is also provision for an individual to invalidate a vote if they are not happy with it. Labour relations are complex enough as it is, and I see no need for the government to intervene in such matters. If there is one body in this country that is not in a moral position to interfere in the business of others and tell them how to behave it is the Government of Canada.
In terms of elections—of direct concern to it—the government is in no position to give anybody lessons on how to hold a vote. We all know that returning officers in this fine country are appointed on a purely partisan basis.
In Quebec we can count on our fingers the number of federal ridings where the returning officers have qualifications other than that of having worked for the Liberal Party of Canada. They come up with such inventions as postal votes, proxy votes, which are an open invitation to all unscrupulous organizers tempted to manipulate vote outcomes. This has been done shamelessly in some Quebec ridings.
Considering how lax the federal government is with respect to the Canada Elections Act, it is in a very poor position to lecture Canada's unions on how to carry out a vote, how to declare a vote invalid and all the procedures related to that.
It might be a good thing for the Canadian Liberal government to use its own bill as a model for inserting a bit more discipline into the Canada Elections Act, in order to clean up the mess we have got into in Quebec. Such practices as going after the senior vote by pursuing them to hospital rooms, waking patients up—it has gone as far as that à going door to door not to influence the vote, as our democracy is meant to work, but to get people out to vote. So they are far indeed from being in a position to lecture others, as they are in Bill C-19.
It is most unimpressive to see this government indicating non-confidence in the way unions have always operated. The federal government is most certainly not the one who should be giving lessons to anyone in this area.
I trust that these words have cast some light on this matter.