Mr. Speaker, today we are again debating the issue of replacement workers.
On several occasions, the members of the opposition have tried to persuade this House to pass measures that would prohibit federal employers from using replacement workers during a work stoppage.
Our government has opposed various bills in the past, and today we continue to oppose this new motion presented to the members of this House, that is, motion No. 294.
I would give the Bloc Québécois members a perfect score for the persistence they show in raising this question, and I know this persistence stems from their passionate conviction that they are right about this issue.
The essence of this motion brings us back once again to previous bills that have already been debated in this House. Indeed, the principle of this motion is no different than the objectives of the last bill on the matter, Bill C-415.
It is important to note that the Canada Labour Code is already very specific on the matter of responsibility of federal employers and unions in the event of a strike or lockout.
At present, the code does not impose a complete ban on the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. However, the use of replacement workers with a view to undermining the union’s representational capacity, rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, is prohibited and constitutes an unfair labour practice.
In addition, it requires the parties to maintain the services necessary to prevent immediate and serious risk to public health or safety. This applies to all employers under federal jurisdiction.
The opposition members go on about the fact that two provinces, Quebec—my home province—and British Columbia, have had a ban on replacement workers for some time.
They claim that labour relations are more harmonious in those provinces than in others or in areas under federal jurisdiction when it comes to strikes and lockouts. Like most generalizations, I doubt that claim would withstand closer scrutiny.
Indeed, in 2005 and 2008, in other words, very recently, Quebec had the highest strike and lockout rate in Canada. So how can anyone claim that the ban on replacement workers has improved the state of labour relations?
I would like to raise some other issues that deserve further attention.
Every time we debate the issue of replacement workers, we make a point of referring to the broad experience on which the member of the Sims task force based their report which led to major changes in the Canada Labour Code.
We should point out that the experts did not reach agreement on the matter of replacement workers and wisely decided not to recommend that their use be totally banned, unless used for the purpose of undermining the union's representational capacity, according to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
The previous government is responsible for introducing the current provision in the Canada Labour Code, and we agree with its decision with respect to the bills which sought to ban the use of replacement workers. It felt it was preferable to take the stakeholders' opinions into account and not to make arbitrary amendments to the labour legislation when there was no urgent reason to do so.
As hon. members are aware, the counterbalance to labour's right to strike is management's right to try to continue operations during the strike. When there is no collective agreement in place, the employer can do everything necessary in order to maintain its activities, provided of course that it does not violate the representational capacity I referred to just now.
In a unionized working environment, however, the two parties have opposing interests, but the employer certainly has the right to keep the business open.
On the other hand, if a labour union deems that its rights have been violated in any way whatsoever, it may file a complaint with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
However, we know that the board receives very few complaints, and in the majority of cases management and labour agree to renew the collective agreement and the complaints are withdrawn. As for the complaints not withdrawn by unions, the board felt that, in most cases, there had been no illegal use of replacement workers.
Major employers under federal jurisdiction do not use replacement workers. What is more, the changes to the code proposed in the motion would be a threat to small and medium businesses, the ones most likely to suffer from long closures.
This therefore leads me to conclude that the present system is working and does not need changing. I cannot support this motion and I would encourage other hon. members to follow suit.