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.