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 One of the tools that management has is the right to continue to operate when labour services have been withdrawn.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.
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.