Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-257. For me, the response is self-evident. The Canada Labour Code seeks to balance and to reconcile opposing interests in any labour dispute and not to promote the interests of a single group to the detriment of the other.
I shall explain. We are being asked to amend the Canada Labour Code concerning the use of replacement workers.
Anyone who has studied questions of labour policy closely knows that employing replacement workers is far from unanimously accepted, especially here in this House, to judge from the number of times the question has been debated.
There are those, like the opposition member, who have introduced a bill calling for the prohibition of the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage. I am sure that to the member it is almost a profession of faith to maintain that position.
On the other hand, there are those who just as fervently proclaim that an organization must have an absolute right to use replacement workers.
Usually, unions and employee groups are in favour of prohibition while employers normally support the use of replacement workers. Both parties are concerned about their survival.
As it often happens in this kind of debate, both sides offer solid arguments in favour of their positions. It is almost impossible to get either side to accept the point of view of the other. There is nothing surprising about that because we are dealing with a very sensitive issue.
In any event, what concerns me is that Bill C-257 appears to defend the interests of only one party. However, it is clear that as lawmakers our role is not to line up on one side or the other but rather to determine where to find common ground.
I believe that we must ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to arbitrarily amend the Canada Labour Code. Should we not ensure that the Code serves the interests of all the parties involved in labour relations? To me, the answer is clear.
The Canada Labour Code seeks to balance and reconcile the opposing interests in any labour dispute and not to promote the interests of one group to the detriment of the other. The question of replacement workers is a good example of that.
When part I of the Labour Code was amended a few years ago, this House opted for a happy medium between a total ban on the use of replacement workers and the right to use replacement workers.
The code does manage to provide a middle ground by allowing employers to hire replacement workers on a temporary basis and only if their purpose is not to undermine the union's efforts to defend the interests of its members. If an employer's intentions prove less than honourable, the union may appeal to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
At present, the Labour Code has the merit of not favouring one party at the expense of the other. It leaves it up to the parties to conclude a fair collective agreement without infringing upon the right of the other party to preserve its livelihood. By being impartial, the code offers an approach which strikes a balance between competing interests.
This approach has been in use for some time now and, in most instances, the parties to negotiations under the Canada Labour Code have been reasonably happy with it.
The amendment proposed in Bill C-257 would jeopardize this precious balance. This makes it counterproductive, and therefore I cannot support it.
One also has to measure the impact of the use of replacement workers on the duration of work stoppages.
Some contend that prohibiting the use of replacement workers helps settle labour disputes faster. In their opinion, preventing employers from hiring replacement workers makes the bargaining process more effective. The member opposite shares that opinion.
Still, there are arguments on the other side. In fact, some independent expert studies indicate that in the provinces where the use of replacement workers is forbidden by provincial legislation, that is, in British Columbia and Quebec, strikes last longer, on average 32 days longer. Furthermore the probability of a strike in these provinces increases by 12%.