The purpose of amendment BQ‑3 is to delete subsection 94(5), which creates a list of exceptions to the objective we want to achieve: that there be no replacement workers in the case of strike or lockout.
If you listened carefully to the unions, what they said in their testimony to us was yes. However, we should not do indirectly what we do not want to do directly. The example given was cheese: so many exceptions that we wonder whether the objective will be achieved.
As subsection 94(5) is now worded, it allows for continuation of the service of a contractor who was used before the notice to bargain was sent. That is evidently contrary to the objective of the bill, if that is in fact its objective.
If the objective is to have a clear conscience and tell ourselves we have accomplished something, that is one thing, but I urge members of the committee to eliminate as many exceptions to the rule as possible, so the exception does not become the rule. That is the purpose of amendment BQ‑3, which proposes to delete subsection 94(5).
It will be recalled that during their testimony, the representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ, said that it could not conceal its concern about this new subsection. The way it is worded, it would mean that even before bargaining begins, an employer could start using another employer's employees, that is, subcontractors, to do the work.
In order to achieve the objective of the bill, I urge committee members to remove subsection 94(5). Although we welcome the bill, our concern has always been that it fulfill its mission properly.