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: