Jean Dubé

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the parliamentary secretary many times this week and last week about Question No. 21. We have been waiting for an answer since October 3, 1997.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House right now whether this question will be answered before the House breaks for the summer?

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

My hon. colleague on the government side seems to have all the answers, but I am sure we will have problems with it.

Motion No. 19 in Group No. 7, moved by the Bloc Quebecois, prohibits the use of replacement workers as long as the workers agree to perform the duties necessary to maintain the essential services referred to in subsection (1).

For example, during a postal strike, as long as postal workers agreed to deliver government cheques, Canada Post would not be allowed to hire replacement workers to perform these duties. That is what is proposed in the Bloc's motion.

We in the Conservative Party must vote against this motion. With this amendment, what cannot be done through the front door is done through the back door. Quite simply, we are against banning replacement workers.

Motion No. 25 put forward by the Reform Party deletes the clause on replacement workers altogether. We in the Conservative Party will vote for this motion.

We have an amendment that seeks to clarify this clause and to make its interpretation less ambiguous. If our changes are rejected, it would be better to completely eliminate the clause, so as to avoid any ambiguity that might give the board the power not to allow the use of replacement workers.

While Motion No. 26 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois seeks to completely prohibit the hiring of replacement workers, our amendment strikes a balance. Indeed, it is not reasonable to prohibit the use of replacement workers, because it would jeopardize the very existence of a business. What is the point of going on strike, if the business no longer exists at the conclusion of the negotiation process? Replacement workers must be available to provide the essential services that workers will not provide.

Our amendment, Motion No. 27, better reflects the spirit of the Simms report. It clearly states that replacement workers are not hired for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. The motion is clear, and if it is passed, there will definitely not be many questions. But I am sure that this evening, the government will vote against it. The motion is too clear for the government, which prefers a bit of confusion.

Motion No. 29 is proposed by the Reform Party. Motion No. 25 seeks to completely eliminate the clause on the use of replacement workers. If Motion No. 25 is passed, that clause will have to be deleted as well.

There are many motions before us today, and we think it is possible to make the bill fair. However, the government must listen to Canadians and to all the opposition parties which have made good suggestions, whether it is the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or our own party. I wonder about the New Democratic Party, if you follow me. We have an opportunity to do a good job.

While the new formulation comes closer to what the Sims task force on Bill C-19 had in mind, it is our opinion that it is still not made clear enough. This is not a general ban on the use of replacement workers. More important, it still does not properly address the meaning of the words used.

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party. If we were to follow the policy described by my hon. colleague from the NDP, unemployment and poverty would be much higher in Canada, because I can assure you that many more industries would be closing down.

I also listened to the comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, who addressed the rights of workers. We in the Conservative Party believe in the rights of workers and we have shown it.

We want to make sure these workers do not lose their jobs. We believe in dialogue rather than in steamrolling people.

One of the big problems in what we are dealing with today is the replacement workers part of it. This issue is one of the few on which the authors of the Sims report could not agree.

One of its authors argued in favour of a complete ban on the use of replacement workers as is the case in labour legislation in Quebec and British Columbia. The majority of the Sims report argued against a general ban on the use of replacement workers. It states where the use of replacement workers is in dispute and is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's representative capacity rather than pursuing a legitimate bargaining objective it should be declared an unfair labour practice. There was a lot of confusion when it came to this part and I believe there still is.

Many motions are before us today and we will probably be here late tonight voting on them. When there are many motions on a piece of legislation it means there are many questions about the proposed legislation. We have not dealt with this legislation in approximately 25 years and all of a sudden it is being put through the House.

Let me explain what is happening. Let me take a bit of time to explain to our viewing audience and the people in the gallery what has happened today and what the government has imposed on this piece of legislation, on the House of Commons and on the public.

Once again the government is in a rush to get it out of here. It has invoked time allocation on the bill. That means it has cut off debate.

It was in committee. I agree; I was there. A lot of consultation went on and we heard from a lot of witnesses. We now have a chance to debate the legislation in front of Canadians. When it comes to that the government cuts us off. It is unfortunate but is what happened today.

The government mentions consultation. Yes, it did that but it certainly did not listen. There are probably 50 amendments today and I do not believe very many of them will pass. These are the concerns of Canadians but they do not seem to be what the government thinks.

Before Bill C-19 there was Bill C-66 which contained provisions that were deemed to tilt the balance toward the unions. The bill did not stipulate clearly that there was no ban on the use of replacement workers. Instead it stated that no employer or person shall use the services of a replacement worker for the purpose of undermining a trade unions replacement representational capacity.

During Senate hearings no one seemed to know how the terms of the bill would be interpreted. That is still a problem today. We do not seem to know what the interpretation will be.

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that presently we do not have quorum to continue debate.

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 33 the following:

“(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).”

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if the hon. member wants to make a speech he should not have cut off debate. We should be debating this in the proper manner.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the parliamentary secretary answered a question today, but I would really like an answer to mine.

Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since October 3, 1997. I asked about the response yesterday and I intend to ask every day until we get the answer.

The parliamentary secretary has repeatedly promised the House that he will make inquiries as to when Question No. 21 will be answered. What are the results of his inquiries and when will Question No. 21 be answered?

[Human Resources Development, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent meeting with officials of the human resources development offices in Madawaska—Restigouche I was disturbed to learn that major cuts have been made to summer career placement programs.

These offices represent one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country, yet the minister saw fit to take away what little students in the area can find to put themselves through school.

How can the minister look these affected students in the eye and justify the department's action?

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the Wal-Mart appeal. Employees at the Windsor store will therefore have to form a union, although they voted 151 to 43 against doing so.

In light of these events, will the government now agree to drop clause 46 from Bill C-19 and reassure the workers of this country that their democratic decisions will be respected?

[Restigouche River Rats Hockey Club, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate all members and volunteers of the Restigouche River Rats hockey club.

Last season they finished in last place as an expansion team. However, this year they won the maritime junior A hockey championship.

Unfortunately this past weekend they lost the Fred Page cup in the championship game bringing their season to an end. They finished as the number 2 team out of 37 from Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

I say with great pride they are number one in the hearts of hockey fans in Madawaska—Restigouche. My hat is off to a job well done.