My hon. colleague on the government side seems to have all the answers, but I am sure we will have problems with it.
Motion No. 19 in Group No. 7, moved by the Bloc Quebecois, prohibits the use of replacement workers as long as the workers agree to perform the duties necessary to maintain the essential services referred to in subsection (1).
For example, during a postal strike, as long as postal workers agreed to deliver government cheques, Canada Post would not be allowed to hire replacement workers to perform these duties. That is what is proposed in the Bloc's motion.
We in the Conservative Party must vote against this motion. With this amendment, what cannot be done through the front door is done through the back door. Quite simply, we are against banning replacement workers.
Motion No. 25 put forward by the Reform Party deletes the clause on replacement workers altogether. We in the Conservative Party will vote for this motion.
We have an amendment that seeks to clarify this clause and to make its interpretation less ambiguous. If our changes are rejected, it would be better to completely eliminate the clause, so as to avoid any ambiguity that might give the board the power not to allow the use of replacement workers.
While Motion No. 26 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois seeks to completely prohibit the hiring of replacement workers, our amendment strikes a balance. Indeed, it is not reasonable to prohibit the use of replacement workers, because it would jeopardize the very existence of a business. What is the point of going on strike, if the business no longer exists at the conclusion of the negotiation process? Replacement workers must be available to provide the essential services that workers will not provide.
Our amendment, Motion No. 27, better reflects the spirit of the Simms report. It clearly states that replacement workers are not hired for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. The motion is clear, and if it is passed, there will definitely not be many questions. But I am sure that this evening, the government will vote against it. The motion is too clear for the government, which prefers a bit of confusion.
Motion No. 29 is proposed by the Reform Party. Motion No. 25 seeks to completely eliminate the clause on the use of replacement workers. If Motion No. 25 is passed, that clause will have to be deleted as well.
There are many motions before us today, and we think it is possible to make the bill fair. However, the government must listen to Canadians and to all the opposition parties which have made good suggestions, whether it is the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or our own party. I wonder about the New Democratic Party, if you follow me. We have an opportunity to do a good job.
While the new formulation comes closer to what the Sims task force on Bill C-19 had in mind, it is our opinion that it is still not made clear enough. This is not a general ban on the use of replacement workers. More important, it still does not properly address the meaning of the words used.