Mr. Speaker, before looking specifically at Group No. 2 of motions, I would like to mention that I committed an almost unpardonable omission just now when I was listing all the groups of employees whom we would have liked to have seen receive more attention in the review of the Canada Labour Code.
I mentioned members of the RCMP, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service, but I neglected to mention pregnant workers, on behalf of whom the unions made highly legitimate representations to us that we wish to convey to the House.
Unfortunately, because of the same process I explained earlier, because of the government's more specific approach this year to the bill before us, we are unable to introduce an amendment that would have made preventative withdrawal possible for pregnant or nursing workers in cases where the health of the mother or the unborn child is at risk. We find this regrettable and want these people to know that we are concerned about them.
I will comment on each of the amendments in Group No. 2, beginning with our own, which has to do with clause 6 on page 12 of the bill. Clause 6 reads as follows:
- The Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing.
This seems excessive, to put it bluntly. We fail to see the validity of that provision. The information notes provided by the government do not convince us that this is appropriate. This could lead the board to take actions that might look like arbitration or abusive measures, and we are not at all convinced that this clause is appropriate.
Motion No. 7, proposed by the Reform Party, deals with clause 13, on page 14 of the bill, and concerns the spirit of the legislation. If I understand its position correctly, the Reform Party is very true to itself. The bill provides that scabs cannot take part in a vote on a union's representational capacity.
Under the Reformers' motion, these replacement workers, or scabs, would be allowed to take part in such a vote, something which we strongly oppose. We must not, in any way, legitimize the hiring of replacement workers, whether it is before, during or after the fact. Therefore, we will oppose this motion by the Reform Party.
Motion No. 8 deals with clause 16 on page 16 of the bill and has to do with employers' representatives. There is a provision with which we have trouble, and this is the reason for our motion. That provision reads:
(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative.
This provision deals with employers' representation on the board. It provides that the employers represented on the board may, for reasons of their own, deem the employer representative no longer qualified to represent them. We respect the fact that these employers may repudiate—to put it bluntly—their representative on the board, without going any further.
Based on the wording of the bill, the board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative. We do not feel it is up to the board to interfere in such matters. It is up to the employers represented to proceed as they see fit and to designate those they see fit to designate.
The board's control over this aspect is a source of concern. Taken to the extreme, the board could decide to retain the representation made by a person whom the employer had indicated it no longer wished to be represented by. This therefore confers an undue control to the board, which is why we are presenting this motion.
Then we have the last motion in Group No. 2, on page 36. This is probably a marked improvement, and is the reason why the public is so pleased, as we must admit it is, with the work of the Simms commission and with the Simms report, which talks about the balance that may have been struck. This mechanism is an important one, and could be described as modern. It is a response to a need that is recognized in the report.
It is stated that the board can, despite a lack of evidence of majority support, certify a union when there has been unfair labour practice or serious infringement on the free choice of employees to free negotiation, to free representation. Thus, when the employer has obviously behaved in an unfair and abusive manner, when there has been intimidation or violence, the legislator may, via the board, authorize certification of a trade union, may certify it to represent a given employee group.
As you have seen, the Reform Party is opposed to such a thing. This is a societal choice, a social as opposed to purely economic point of view, where a deaf ear is turned regardless of even seriously unfair labour practices, as the government's explanatory notes indicate.
We on this side are vehemently opposed to this. I personally find it a very up to date, very generous point of view, provided of course that the board has set out clear guidelines.
It must be hoped that the board will show some wisdom, that it will ensure that it does not become common practice to give such accreditation without proper consultation or a vote. There would, I assume, have to be exceptional circumstances for this clause to be applied.
Those are, therefore, the comments I wanted to make on the four motions in Group No. 2.