Debates of May 12th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 22 stands deferred and will also apply to Motion No. 23.

Just before we go to Group No. 7, for the information of hon. members present and those in the gallery in about 10 minutes we will be going to the Senate for royal assent.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 28 the following:

“(1.1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, 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 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 if the employees of the bargaining unit continue the activities referred to in subsection (1) in the manner prescribed by that subsection.”

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 38 on page 33.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 38 on page 33 with the following:

“(2.1) 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 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.”

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 33 the following:

“(2.2) For greater certainty, an employer shall be deemed not to have undermined a trade union's representational capacity by reason only of the employer's use of the services of a person referred to in subsection (2.1).”

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-19, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 24 on page 36.

Business Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order, any division requested on Private Members' Business, Motion No. M-75 or Bill C-247, shall be deferred to the expiry of the time for government business on Monday, May 25.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 19, 25, 26, 27 and 29.

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I wish to inform the House that there is an error in today's notice paper and in the voting pattern in respect of Motion No. 27 in Group No. 7.

A vote on Motion No. 25 applies to Motion No. 29. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 27. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 25 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 27. Motions Nos. 19 and 26 will be voted on separately.

Revised voting patterns and report stage charts are available at the table. I regret any inconvenience this may have caused hon. members.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank you for reading Motion No. 26 in its entirety. We asked you to do so on a matter of principle and as a symbolic gesture. Given the importance of this motion, we wanted it recorded properly in the Debates of the House of Commons .

I am also very proud to see that the motion is seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was responsible last year for the brilliant and valiant work done on the Canada Labour Code, when he held the position I have this year. Considering the situation that prevailed last year, I feel I must thank and congratulate him.

Here we are with Group No. 7, which substantially represents our position with respect to this bill, and which refers in particular to the clause on replacement workers. It is of such importance that we cannot, in all conscience, support this bill with the present wording of clause 42.

So that our audience may understand this fully, I feel it is worthwhile reading in its entirety the position of the government, backed by the NDP, and I believe by the Progressisve Conservative Party, while the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to clause 42, but for diametrically opposed reasons.

I will read clause 42 in its entirety.

No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, 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 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.

Members will have noted, as my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, did last year, the convoluted wording, which is of no real help to anyone. It is a nightmare, not to put too fine a point on it, to get at the meaning of using for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives. It sidesteps the issue, and this is one of the secondary reasons, in addition to the fact that we are opposed to the substance, that we are opposed to the way the problem is set out.

I do not think that Canada—compared with Quebec obviously—is equipping itself with the means to move forward. I think that everyone is going after a careful balance. This is worth pointing out, because the whole thrust of the Sims report is to achieve balance. I think the result is something that is going to balance everyone into a corner.

This is one of the reasons—and it is both secondary and essential at the same time—we oppose this clause and accordingly the entire bill.

It is rather interesting to note, as I did earlier, that the Liberal party, the government party, is in favour of the bill. It is understandable that the New Democratic party supports it, given its close ties with the union movement. The Progressive Conservative party is in favour, but the Bloc Quebecois is not, nor is the Reform party, for diametrically opposed reasons.

It puts me in mind of Meech Lake, and this is part of the Canada-Quebec problem. The Bloc Quebecois is against the bill because it does not give workers enough, and the Reform party is against it because it gives workers too much. It is so strongly opposed that it wants to eliminate every term that prevents the hiring of scabs or replacement workers.

With the Reform Party there is no subtlety. It even goes into the details where the board is given powers to declare the hiring of replacement workers when done out in the open an unfair labour practice, whereas here, with their balanced approach, the Liberals are claiming that replacement workers can be hired in order to undermine a union's representational capacity.

The Reform Party goes a long way. Should it appear that replacement workers are being hired to undermine the union's representational capacity, it wants to deny the board the right to declare the hiring of replacement workers unfair labour practice. That's that.

The Conservatives are after the same thing, but more subtlely. Their approach is worth describing. The government has grown in wisdom and in thoughtfulness in the past year. It has added a very important word. Last year, the wording read “No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, thereby undermining a trade union's representational capacity—”, while the 1998 version reads “—for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity—”.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability)—Chapter No. 6.

Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-8, an act respecting an accord between the Governments of Canada and the Yukon Territory relating to the administration and control of and legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas—Chapter No. 5.

Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code—Chapter No. 7.

Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act—Chapter No. 8.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance; the hon. member for Vancouver East, the multilateral agreement on trade; the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, disaster relief.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 7.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was denouncing the fact that the government changed its position, rather subtly, without boasting too loudly about it, from one year to the next. In 1997, speaking of replacement workers, it read “for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity”.

In 1998, obviously under pressure from management, the word “demonstrated” was added. It now reads “for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity”. This will make it much more difficult for the union to prove to the court that replacement workers were hired for the purpose of undermining its representational capacity.

The union will be required to prove the “demonstrated purpose of undermining”. The fact that replacement workers are being hired is not enough. Now it will have to be demonstrated that it was “for the demonstrated” specific and actual “purpose of undermining the union's representational capacity”.

This makes the union's burden of proof even heavier, which is likely to have a negative impact on its members' morale and discourage them from getting involved in this kind of thing.

The PC's approach is even worse. I do not know whether it was inspired by its former leader, Jean Charest, the former member for Sherbrooke, but if that is the case, Quebec workers are in for a rough ride if Charest ever becomes the premier of Quebec.

Motion No. 27 moved by the Progressive Conservative Party reads as follows:

(2.2) For greater certainty, an employer shall be deemed not to have undermined a trade union's representational capacity by reason only of the employer's use of the services of a person referred to in subsection (2.1).

The Liberals are saying that it must be “for the demonstrated purpose”, while the Conservatives are basically saying that even though scabs are hired, the employer is not trying to adversely affect workers.

This is a big joke. They are laughing at workers. They do not care about their right to strike, about their demands. Both the Conservatives and the Reformers are trying to undermine the very existence of unions. This is most serious and this is why I cannot support the clause in its present form. One can see that workers' rights are in jeopardy, given that the government—with just one additional word—and the Conservatives—with their proposed amendment—are making it a lot more difficult for unions to adequately protect themselves.

As for the Reform Party, it does not beat around the bush. For all practical purposes, the right to strike is completely undermined. With the Reformers, the issue is not the unions' representational capacity, but the right to strike. Under the Reformers' logic, even though workers are unionized and can democratically decide to go on strike, any employer could legally, with impunity, hire replacement workers to continue operations, and there would be nothing wrong with that. Under the Reformers' plan, it would all be perfectly legal.

In no way are they saying that this is an unfair practice. Under the Reformers' plan, even though the right to strike exists, even though a strike is legal, replacement workers could be hired with impunity.

We feel this is unacceptable, particularly to those of us in Quebec who have experienced something else, which we shall get back to at third reading. For the last 21 years, we have lived in a society where the right to strike is respected and where the hiring of scab labour is banned as an unfair labour practice. As a result, there are fewer strikes, they are not as long, and most importantly, there is no violence.

One need only go as far as Quebec City to see the difference. Recently there was violence at the port of Quebec, which is a federal jurisdiction, when there was a labour conflict and scabs were hired. The authorities intervened too late, unfortunately, to prevent the violence.

We are, therefore, totally opposed to this clause of the bill.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I see there are several motions with respect to the replacement worker provision in Bill C-19. One motion is seeking to delete the provision while another is seeking to make the provision into a general prohibition on their use.

Bill C-19 implements the majority recommendation of the Sims task force with respect to replacement workers. The task force noted that the one point concerning replacement workers on which both labour and management agreed was that they should not be used by an employer for the purpose of ridding the workplace of union representation.

The task force majority did not recommend a general prohibition on the use of replacement workers. It did recommend that their demonstrated use for the purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives should be an unfair labour practice.

While maintaining their underlying opposing positions on the replacement worker issue, representatives of both labour and management in the federal sector accepted this approach in the context of the overall package of task force recommendations.

In response to concerns raised during the study of former Bill C-66, that the wording of the provision did not capture the full intent of the task force recommendation, the provision in Bill C-19 was redrafted to include the complete wording of the task force recommendation. The new wording was requested by employer representatives as well as by the Senate standing committee in its report on Bill C-66. The added words make it clear that the union filing the complaint bears the burden of proof and that the use of replacement workers by an employer for the purpose of continuing operations is not prohibited.

With respect of the new wording of the provision, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of with Persons with Disabilities that the addition of the words “rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives” in proposed section 94(2.1) will ensure that any tribunal interpreting this legislation will be guided by the explicit obligation to consider the reason why the employer may have hired strike replacements rather than only the protection of a union's representational rights, as was the case under Bill C-66.

The chair of the federally regulated employers transportation and communications group told the committee: “The language we see in Bill C-19 is reflective of the spirit, intent and content of the Sims report in most of the critical areas”. FETCO legal counsel stated that the drafting concern they had with former Bill C-66, including the replacement worker provision, had been addressed. In my view, given these comments, additional language would be redundant.

Bill C-19 includes a number of other provisions recommended by the task force which will protect the rights of employees who strike or are locked out.

Bill C-19 confirms the right of striking or locked out employees to return to work at the end of a work stoppage in preference to replacements. It gives employees dismissed or disciplined during a work stoppage access to grievance arbitration. It prohibits the submission of an application for certification or revocation during work stoppages without the consent of the board. It says replacement workers are not entitled to participate in representation votes. It recognizes the right of employees on strike or who are locked out to continue to be covered by insurance plans provided they pay the full amount of required contributions.

The Bloc Quebecois has put forward a motion to add a paragraph to proposed section 87(4). This motion would prohibit the use of replacement workers where employees of the bargaining unit continue the activities necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. I submit this is likely to generate unnecessary litigation.

The proposed amendment sees a somewhat bizarre situation in which an employer seeks not only to have services maintained by bargaining unit employees but to recruit replacements to work alongside of them. Add to this unusual circumstance a trade union ready to negotiate the maintenance of services by its own 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, very unlikely.

The provisions in Bill C-19 respecting the use of replacement workers represent a fair and reasonable compromise to a difficult issue. I urge members of the House to support the provisions in Bill C-19 without amendment.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this set of motions in Group No. 7 is a bit of a quandary for us. There are two motions which the NDP caucus is in favour of and others that we are not. I presume we will have the opportunity to vote on them individually.

The two motions we are in favour of deal with strengthening the anti-scab aspects of Bill C-19. We have spoken in favour of Bill C-19 in total. We recognize its value and we recognize the long and exhaustive consultative process it took to get us to this point. However our one criticism of Bill C-19 has always been and still is that the reference to anti-scab is too soft and does not really follow through to the degree—

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that presently we do not have quorum to continue debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a quorum call. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really hope the 130,000 prairie farmers who are waiting for this bill to be passed so that they can be comfortable that their grain will move without interruption this fall are taking note of the delays and the stalling tactics that have been going on in this House. I hope they are paying attention. I am sure they are. They will make good note of that.

What I was getting at and the reason I rose to speak is that while we are happy with the package in total, our one criticism of Bill C-19 is that the anti-scab aspects of the bill do not go far enough to really fulfill what the parties had in mind when they sat down to draft Bill C-19.

We understand that the whole package was a compromise. Nobody at the table really got everything they wanted. There was a lot of give and take and a lot of goodwill. Finding a balance is never easy, but having reviewed the motions we have before us from the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, I believe Motion Nos. 19 and 26 would serve the bill well in making it the piece of legislation Canadian industry really needs and should be asking for.

The virtues of anti-scab legislation are obvious. We have the case study right in the province next to us. We can look to the province of Quebec and monitor the experience and the benefits from its long tenure of the anti-scab bill. We know from that experience there are fewer days of lost time due to strikes and lockouts. The parties are not likely to risk pushing a bargaining session to an impasse knowing that their anti-scab legislation would preclude the ability of using replacement workers. Naturally the parties are forced to a position where they have to work a little harder to find a reasonable solution.

We also know that the incidence of picket line violence is lower. I agree with the previous speaker that we should not be charting our course by the lighting on a passing ship. What I mean to say is that we should not be crafting legislation to preclude violence. Nobody is going to be drafting legislation under threat or some veiled threat. That is not the case. The actual fact is that both parties often allow tempers to flare and incidents of violence do take place on picket lines when scabs try to cross picket lines. If that is precluded or eliminated, then there is not that problem.

I have been to the scene of strikes in the city of Montreal. I joined my fellow brothers with the carpenters union when they were striking in that industry in the city of Montreal. The first thing I did was I went to a major site where I knew there were carpenters working. I wanted to join them on the picket line, not really thinking through that there was not going to be a picket line. There did not need to be a picket line.

Picket lines are there to keep scabs out. Once it has been shown that there is a strike, a couple of placards are put up and the public knows there is a strike at the site and the product is hot as a result. There are no scabs crossing the line. There is no need for workers to be walking the line keeping vehicles from going in and out, et cetera. That is where things flare up.

Just the very fact that there is solid anti-scab legislation in the province of Quebec minimizes the number of days lost due to strikes and lockouts. It minimizes the incidents of people stooping to violence on either side, whether it is the replacement workers or frustrated employees at the location trying to defend their jobs.

Another aspect of Bill C-19 deals with anti-scab and I believe it needs to be improved. The burden of proof is currently on the union to demonstrate that the employer is using scabs in a way that undermines the bargaining rights of the union, or it is the intent to undermine the union by the use of scabs. Regarding that burden of proof, contrary to what we heard from the previous speaker, it is going to be very difficult to get any board to rule as to what was in the mind of the employer when the scabs were hired.

The advantage is clearly to the employer in the current language of Bill C-19 if it is not amended. I would certainly argue that it does not matter what labour leaders were quoted, obviously the advocates for the employees are going to argue that the union is trying to undermine the bargaining rights and that therefore the scabs should be outlawed. I frankly do not think that they would win. It would be a terrible uphill battle and a very difficult argument to win. The Reform Party should take some comfort in that. The way I read Bill C-19 on that aspect, the advantage is clearly for the employer.

This is one of the most sensitive parts of Bill C-19 for our caucus at least and for the labour movement. The right to withhold services in a way that puts economic pressure on the employer is the only peaceful means of negotiating benefits for workers that is available to us. It is really the only tool in our tool chest. When bargaining breaks down and we are trying to elevate the standards or the wages and working conditions for the people we represent, passive resistance and withholding service are the two things we can legally use to add weight to our points of view.

As a result, these clauses and the motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières are very important to us. They would add that small bit which is lacking in Bill C-19 to make it a truly satisfactory package that will add lasting labour peace to the Canadian industrial relations environment.

The whole idea of strikes and lockouts may get more attention than it deserves in these debates. It has been stated over and over again that over 95% of all rounds of bargaining are settled without any lost time. While lost time due to strikes and lockouts is a problem in the industry, it is dealt with in a way that is out of proportion.

In Manitoba we lose approximately 50,000 person days per year due to strikes and lockouts which is a big problem. Management howls about lost productivity and lost profits, et cetera. It is a problem. However we lose 550,000 person days per year due to injuries on the job and workplace accidents. If they are serious about lost productivity, the answer is to clean up the workplace, to stop the carnage in the workplace. Then those 50,000 person days lost per year will be put into perspective.

Another aspect deals with picket line incidents. One of the positive aspects of Bill C-19 is that employees who are off work for a strike or a lockout will be guaranteed their jobs when they go back. Those who may have been disciplined during their absence will have the right to the grievance procedure and arbitration. This is a case of natural justice. They should have access to some avenue of recourse. If in the heat of the moment an incident happens, this provision in Bill C-19 will recognize that everybody deserves the right to the use of that avenue of recourse.

Our caucus will be voting in favour of Motions Nos. 19 and 26. We believe they are necessary and that they will add substance and weight to what is already a worthy piece of legislation. In the interests of minimizing the lost time due to strikes and lockouts, I would hope the other members in the House can support the motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party. If we were to follow the policy described by my hon. colleague from the NDP, unemployment and poverty would be much higher in Canada, because I can assure you that many more industries would be closing down.

I also listened to the comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, who addressed the rights of workers. We in the Conservative Party believe in the rights of workers and we have shown it.

We want to make sure these workers do not lose their jobs. We believe in dialogue rather than in steamrolling people.

One of the big problems in what we are dealing with today is the replacement workers part of it. This issue is one of the few on which the authors of the Sims report could not agree.

One of its authors argued in favour of a complete ban on the use of replacement workers as is the case in labour legislation in Quebec and British Columbia. The majority of the Sims report argued against a general ban on the use of replacement workers. It states where the use of replacement workers is in dispute and is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's representative capacity rather than pursuing a legitimate bargaining objective it should be declared an unfair labour practice. There was a lot of confusion when it came to this part and I believe there still is.

Many motions are before us today and we will probably be here late tonight voting on them. When there are many motions on a piece of legislation it means there are many questions about the proposed legislation. We have not dealt with this legislation in approximately 25 years and all of a sudden it is being put through the House.

Let me explain what is happening. Let me take a bit of time to explain to our viewing audience and the people in the gallery what has happened today and what the government has imposed on this piece of legislation, on the House of Commons and on the public.

Once again the government is in a rush to get it out of here. It has invoked time allocation on the bill. That means it has cut off debate.

It was in committee. I agree; I was there. A lot of consultation went on and we heard from a lot of witnesses. We now have a chance to debate the legislation in front of Canadians. When it comes to that the government cuts us off. It is unfortunate but is what happened today.

The government mentions consultation. Yes, it did that but it certainly did not listen. There are probably 50 amendments today and I do not believe very many of them will pass. These are the concerns of Canadians but they do not seem to be what the government thinks.

Before Bill C-19 there was Bill C-66 which contained provisions that were deemed to tilt the balance toward the unions. The bill did not stipulate clearly that there was no ban on the use of replacement workers. Instead it stated that no employer or person shall use the services of a replacement worker for the purpose of undermining a trade unions replacement representational capacity.

During Senate hearings no one seemed to know how the terms of the bill would be interpreted. That is still a problem today. We do not seem to know what the interpretation will be.