Mr. Speaker, we are debating Group No. 7. I want to talk a bit about replacement worker legislation.
While this legislation does not come out with an outright ban on the use of replacement workers, it does leave, to say the least, a lot of discretion up to the CIRB. It begs probably more questions than it actually answers.
The discretion of whether to use replacement workers is going to be left solely to the board. In any case of the use of replacement workers there will be tremendous pressure put on the board to agree with the union that this an undermining of the union, which is referred to in the vernacular as union busting.
It is likely that, under tremendous pressure, the use of any replacement workers, whether managerial or otherwise, will be seen by the board as undermining the fundamentals of the union.
We have read quotes by several union leaders which say exactly that. They say they are going to impress on the board in every instance where replacement workers are used that it will be solely to undermine the union.
I think there are instances where replacement workers will simply be used to maintain the viability of the business. I do not think there is a union in the world that would like to have its employer broke. It would be basically cutting off its nose to spite its face.
In the area of replacement workers, we are also told by union bosses that this is absolutely necessary to prevent violence. It seems as if we are under some kind of constant threat. If there is not an outright ban on replacement workers there may be violence. The unions are quick to cite examples of where there was violence on the picket lines. Violence is one thing but good labour legislation is another thing. There are laws which state that violence is not acceptable and having to pass labour laws under the veil of possible violence is doing it for the wrong reasons.
In the course of the debate today we heard how naive some members in this House thought members of the Reform Party were because we made allusions to protecting the national economy from devastating work stoppages that would have an effect on the national economy. A rather weak argument was put forth that of course any disruption of services is going to put economic pressure on somebody. Certainly. Of course. We understand that the union wants to put economic pressure on the employer in order for the employer to see the union's way of thinking.
Apparently, the people who made those comments had selective hearing. We were talking about actions taken by employers and employees, strikes or lockouts, that would have a devastating effect on the national economy. A devastating effect on the national economy filters down very quickly to the very people my colleagues down the way are purporting to protect. If there is a work stoppage of any type that has a tremendously adverse effect on the economy, it is the little people who support those businesses and who depend on those services who are ultimately hurt.
I will deliberately shorten my comments because some of my colleagues would like to share their thoughts on the use and partial bans of replacement workers.