Pat Martin

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

That will not be necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that I spoke to Group No. 2. I frankly did not realize that I had spoken to Group No. 3. I could be wrong but—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to the Group No. 3 motions, the recommended amendments to Bill C-19.

We do not find anything in these particular amendments that we feel will move the bill forward or make it better in any way, shape or form. In fact it certainly strikes us in the NDP caucus—

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in these clauses. I did rise to speak to some of the other motions to try to convey our views and why we are not in favour of Reform's motions to amend Bill C-19 at this late stage.

The motions we are dealing with now, Nos. 9 and 28, deal with successor rights, a fundamental principle that we should be happy to have strengthened and enshrined in our code because it is a matter of basic fairness again.

Like so many of the changes in Bill C-19, it finds its origins in the fact that we are striving for a balanced situation to be put in place that is more fair to all the parties. It deals specifically with airport workers. However, we can take this idea further because with the privatization and more and more frequent sales and mergers of companies, this issue comes up more often in the federally regulated industrial relations climate.

There are recent horrifying examples that have worked out to the detriment of workers. For instance, in the privatization at Goose Bay, non-military people are now being hired back by the private contractor at about half the wages they used to make before. The instances were piling up to the point where it was necessary to take some steps.

I do not think any of these motions are going to really help us to achieve social justice. I do not think one can ever achieve social justice through parliamentary means, frankly, because that is the job of the labour movement. It is the union's job to achieve economic and social justice.

What we can do is try to create the legislative framework within which unions can function, prosper, flourish and do their jobs. Bill C-19 tries to deal with the historic imbalance that exists between employers and employees, the imbalance in the power relationship. We are trying to level those things out so that people have a fighting chance and can deal with each other on a level playing field.

A number of the motions that Reform is trying to advocate here worry me because there is always something just below the surface that is kind of sinister about Reform motions. It is cause for concern. It is not even that far under the surface. It is sometimes quite overt. A person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions. It is a well known point in law. The probable and predictable consequences of many of the motions the Reform Party is advocating would be that it would be much more difficult for workers to form a union. It would be much more difficult for workers to negotiate benefits through their union, and all those predictable things.

Really what they are trying to sell here is a worked over version of the right-to-work policy and philosophy. Right to work is the sad state of affairs in 21 of the United States. I do not think it is any coincidence that the Fraser Institute has just released “Right to Work”, the answer for the new millennium for labour relations, which is being flogged around the Hill. In fact, copies were delivered to my office.

Reform is using Bill C-19 as a launching pad to try to kick off its campaign to introduce right-to-work legislation in this country. It failed to do that in the province of Alberta. Even a right winger like Ralph Klein threw the idea out because it is an obsolete, out-dated and divisive concept. It has tried to introduce it into parliament in a back-handed, back-door way.

While we are legitimately trying to make Bill C-19 better, those members are trying to tear down the whole idea with a rather sinister package of motions which really undermines the whole concept of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and the legitimate role of unions to try to elevate the standards of wages and working conditions for the people they represent.

There is nothing wrong with fair wages. Fair wages benefit the whole community. In the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, someone would have a hard time arguing why we should be tightening our belts and rolling back when banks and corporations are making record profits. Who will advocate for working people that point of view if unions will not make the argument for them?

I really am worried by the tone and the content of some of the motions put forward by the Reform Party. I think there is an underlying objective here. I used the word “sinister” and I do not think it is overstating things.

Those members seem to have, whether it is stated right up front or coming in the back door in some kind of sleazy way, a secondary objective. I can point out one case certainly. They were arguing that when 35% of the cards are signed, under Bill C-19 a vote will be ordered. The labour board may have a supervised vote so that workers can then choose whether they want a union or not.

The change they made would result in having a vote every time. Even if the workers' representative went to the labour board with 85% of the cards signed, their change states that the labour board shall order a vote. Workers would have to vote even if they demonstrated 100% support. They are making people vote twice. How democratic is that?

Are those members not satisfied that people have voted once? Will people be made to vote until the desired result is achieved? They talk about democracy. That is nothing short of sleazy. It is an abuse of power.

Those members are trying to slip in a secondary objective with something which, on the face of it, might look like a reasonable request.

If they were only asking that the board shall order a vote if 35% of the cards are signed, but if 51% of the cards are signed or 50%-plus certification is automatic, I could then vote in favour of the motion. But that is not what they mean. It is a much bigger package than that.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to point out some of these things before the end of the day. I have a feeling we are going to be up and down a number of times saying that those members are abusing democracy again. Although I should not say that because filibustering is a legitimate tactic that members use in the House of Commons.

However, it makes me wonder how it is in the best interests of the Canadian people. It makes me wonder whether they have really thought about the 100,000 prairie farmers who are very anxious to see Bill C-19 go through so they can ship their crops with the comfort of knowing that things will be handled and there will not be any work stoppages interfering with the movement of their commodity.

Have they talked to the UGG? Have they talked to the pool elevator operators? Have they talked to the prairie farmers and received their okay for dragging this bill to a halt and preventing Canadians from having the advantage of this very worthwhile piece of legislation? I do not think so, because the prairie farmers who those members like to think they represent would give them an earful. I think they would tell them loud and clear that they want passage of Bill C-19 because it has merit and value. It is good for Canadian working people and it will create balance.

In some of their remarks they even had the audacity to suggest that Bill C-19 is going to somehow have an impact on our ability to trade internationally, that it is going to hold us back. They were talking about the guy from Papua, New Guinea. It is completely absurd.

In actual fact the countries that are moving forward, the countries that are making progress, are the countries that deal in a tripartite way, where business, government and labour sit down at the table together to chart a social and economic plan and platform. It is not divisive. These guys are living in the past. They want to smash unions. They want unions out of the way. They do not recognize the legitimacy of unions.

We are not going to move forward if we have that mindset. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières is nodding his head because Quebec's model follows those lines. Labour is a legitimate practitioner in the community. Labour is seen to have a valid opinion and is consulted.

When the Reform Party finally gives up trying to bash unions and trying to be shills for the right to work movement and the Fraser Institute, maybe we can move forward as a country in a truly tripartite fashion. I think that is what Bill C-19 speaks to and that gives me some hope that there is an interest in dealing with issues in that way.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to speak to the idea of the relevancy of what the member is talking about. We are supposed to be talking about Group No. 2 which I believe is Motion Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30. Really, what the hon. member was talking about has no bearing whatsoever on Reform's motion or—

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do something a bit novel. I would like to actually speak to one of the motions that we are dealing with currently, which will be a bit of a shift from the last couple of speakers. We heard everything from Papua, New Guinea, to international affairs and how the labour code is going to have a broad-sweeping international detrimental impact on our country's abilities.

To deal with some of the specifics of why we are really here today, I would like to talk to Motion No. 7 put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin which would require that a representation vote be taken among employees in a unit and so on. The member spoke briefly about this when he made his remarks. He thought it would be a breach of democracy if there were situations in which a union could be granted certification if there had been unfair labour practice.

I want to point out some of the legal arguments that the board has to take into consideration when it makes such a rare ruling as granting automatic certification. Really what it hinges on is the board being satisfied that it is not possible to determine the true wishes of the employees because there has been interference. In that situation it will grant certification. It will give the employees the benefit of the doubt. Again, the board will only do that if the employees have demonstrated that without that interference the application for certification would actually have gone through.

In the actual case histories where this has happened, union representatives have had to show that they were well on their way to signing up enough cards, that they were getting close to a majority. Then the onus was on the union or the representative of the workers to prove that there was interference to such a degree that holding a vote would have been irrelevant because the whole situation had been poisoned to the point where the true wishes of the employees would not be known by a free vote.

Another point that the member made was that the privacy of the ballot box, the sanctity of the voting booth, is a place where no interference can take place. The result of every organizing drive that I have been on was that the election was held at the place of work; in fact, in the offices of the employer. Every worker who wanted to vote on the issue had to march down a gauntlet, walk down a hallway where all the bosses stood in the doors to their offices with their arms folded and glared at them to the point where we filed complaints. It has been very much a problem in some cases.

Interference happens even without speaking. There is psychological interference. It is very difficult to walk past the person who has control over your economic destiny and do something that person does not want you to do. Most employers do not want a union in their workplace.

I disagree that there is no interference possible when it is a secret ballot vote.

The member made the point that he did not think if union representatives got 35% of the cards signed they should get a vote. I think that is wrong. I think if 35% is indicated there is a sufficient amount of support to test it. If certification is not granted at 35%, then there will be a vote supervised by the labour board. That is very fair, in my estimation.

If over 50% of the cards are signed, the board will say that a vote is not necessary, majority support has been demonstrated and it should go ahead.

My argument is that it actually takes more of a conscious effort to sign a union card. Those cards have to be written very specifically to say the undersigned wants this particular bargaining agent to represent them in all matters dealing with terms and conditions, wages, et cetera. They have to read it, sign that they have read it, dig in their pocket and hand over $5. They have to consciously indicate that they want the union to represent them. It is actually more meaningful in my mind than walking into a ballot box, seeing yea or nay and putting an x on it.

Having 35% of the cards signed is very meaningful to me. It indicates a level of support that deserves to be tested with a vote. If there is 50% plus one, then the people have spoken.

Motion No. 7 asks for a vote in all cases. Even if the union manages to show that 100% of the cards have been signed, according to this motion a vote would still have to be conducted. People would be asked to vote twice on the same thing. How many times are votes to be held? Until they get the answer they want? Will people be made to vote over and over again until the desired effect is achieved and they can finally cap it off? That would be patently unfair. If majority support can be indicated, that should be satisfactory.

Automatic certification is an aspect of fairness which we are trying to achieve, as per the Sims task force and as per the whole substance of Bill C-19. We are trying to create a balance. We are trying to provide people with access to representation without fear of coercion, intimidation or the misuse of the historic imbalance in the power relationship that has always existed between employers and employees. We are seeking to level that playing field, at least for matters of labour relations, to make the two parties more equal. They will not be afraid of each other because they will have this equalizing legislation.

Bill C-19 does not put too much power in the hands of working people and unions. All other matters are still the exclusive right of management. Every collective agreement has a management rights clause which states that management has the exclusive right to dictate the means of production, the hours of work, et cetera. That is an aspect of every part of labour management relations. We are only talking about fairness in terms of access to representation if the people want it.

There is nothing threatening in Bill C-19, nor in the amendments dealing with certification. Adopting Motion No. 7 would be a huge step backwards in terms of allowing people to make their own choice on whether or not they want representation.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I recently came in from my riding, got off the plane and raced here to find that we missed one of our speaking opportunities. I thank you for recognizing me now and giving me the chance to speak to the five first motions put forth for consideration to amend Bill C-19 and the Canada Labour Code.

I have reviewed these five motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières. While I fully understand the tone and content, and even some of the merits of what the member for Trois-Rivières is obviously trying to argue, I cannot support the idea of introducing these changes at this time.

The five motions are clustered together for obvious reasons because they deal with the same subject matter, the composition of the newly formed board and the representational qualities of the board, the appointment of the chair and the vice-chair, and their terms of office.

I do not think I will break them down in detail and comment on them one by one in that regard, except to start my remarks by saying how critical this part of Bill C-19 is. The whole review of the board and its structure and the fact that it will be truly representational now is a huge leap forward for the labour relations climate in the country.

I should say as well that the ideas stated in Bill C-19, the amendments to the code, are the result of exhaustive consultation, two years of consultation with labour and management all across the country. Everybody had a kick at the cat. Everybody had ample opportunity to try to make recommendations that would make this a better and a more functional labour board.

As the Sims task force points to as its mandate, we were seeking a balance, some way to satisfy the interests of all the true stakeholders.

After all this consultation, this give and take and co-operation, they arrived at the changes that are called for in the original Bill C-19. The minister makes the appointments. The terms are set. The stakeholders recommend the other members of the board so that it is truly a representational board. All those things are part of a fine balance and part of a larger package that is Bill C-19. I would be very reluctant to alter it at this time for the risk of upsetting that delicate balance. It would not be showing respect for the whole consultation process that took place in the previous two years.

Most of the parties involved are very satisfied with the current package. It was not just Bill C-19. Going back to Bill C-66 this exhaustive consultation process took place. It went through the various levels of debate in the House of Commons and made it all the way to the Senate before the election was called.

There have been ample opportunities to make any changes that people felt were necessary or desirable at any one of those stages.

What we have is a situation now where the parties that truly rely on the labour code, the federally regulated employers, the employees who work for them and their representatives, are eager to see Bill C-19 moved forward.

The package is satisfactory. The package does not serve all of our needs and certainly from labour's side there are many things we wish were there, many things we wish we could have convinced our partners in industry to adopt. It is not always possible. It was a give and a take. It was very much the type of co-operation that we should be looking for as a model in other forms of legislation. I believe that all stakeholders put their own special interests aside. They left their baggage at the door and did what was right to make the labour board a more practical, relevant and functional institution.

It certainly needed review. It needed amendment. We had a terrible situation with the board where there was a huge backlog of cases. I believe there were as many as 90 applications for certification pending. These are very time sensitive. When workers have the courage to sign a union card and to organize themselves so that they can bargain collectively, there is always a backlash from the employer. Often there are subtle forms of coercion, intimidation or harassment which make the workers rethink whether this is the right thing they are doing. Any delays increase the odds of that happening.

With this newly constituted board I believe that case work will be dealt with more quickly, the backlog will be fixed up and these workers will have access to the justice they deserve.

This is one of the reasons we are hoping for speedy passage of Bill C-19 so those workers who have legitimate issues pending can start having them dealt with and heard by this newly constituted board.

Motions Nos. 1 through 5 seem to minimize the powers of the minister and add authority and powers to the committee that deals with human resources issues. In other words, the minister's role would be minimized and the role of the standing committee would be augmented. While there may be some merit in that kind of argument, in actual fact it would not change the balance of power in that the standing committee for HRDC is dominated by government by virtue of the number of seats that it is given.

Surely, if the minister wants a certain thing to happen, whether it is directly in his or her hands or in the hands of the committee members, the government's wishes will come about. I do not believe there is enough merit in this argument. Even if we were convinced this was the right thing to do, I do not think it has enough merit to delay the passage of Bill C-19 with further debate and obstacles and so on.

We know the official opposition will be introducing a number of motions designed to delay the implementation of Bill C-19. We will have to deal with those when they come before us. However, in this case an issue such as the composition of the board or the appointment of the chairs and the vice-chairs or the term of office in which they sit in itself is not enough to delay the passage of what is definitely a very worthy piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will benefit working people as they conduct themselves in a federally regulated workplace.

In my mind there is nothing concrete in this package of motions that will make Bill C-19 any better to any degree. We are dealing with minutiae here. We are dealing with fine tuning an idea.

The real change, the one that we should be most interested in, is the fact that the board will now be representational. It will have a neutral chairperson, a representative from labour and a representative from management. In that kind of balance I think we will achieve some of the mandate of the Sims task force, achieve a balance in Canadian labour relations.

Anybody who has been a practitioner in labour relations knows that is the goal. The key objective is fairness. Natural justice and fairness are the two yardsticks by which we measure the success or the failure of the industrial relations process, the quasi-judicial process of the way we conduct ourselves in the federally regulated workplace of today.

If I saw anything that would substantially make Bill C-19 better I think I could stand here and recommend that our caucus vote for it. As much as I have a great deal of respect for the member for Trois-Rivières—and I know he is a committed trade unionist and somebody who is sincere about making the environment better for Canadian workers—the only reason I cannot support this package of motions is that I do not see it making Bill C-19 substantially better. Therefore the recommendation to my NDP caucus is that we will be voting against this package of motions.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians deserve a better answer than that. I asked a legitimate question.

Now we have learned from the auditor general that the government has been fudging its books and hiding its money away from hepatitis C victims.

We all know the money is there. Why will the Minister of Health not show some real leadership and some real political courage and revisit the issue? If you will not open the old deal, negotiate—

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the last month the government has been saying it is refusing to compensate all hepatitis C victims as a matter of principle. Tommy Douglas used to say that when they tell you it's not the money, it's the principle, you know it's the money.

Every Canadian can see it is not a matter of principle or precedent. It is the money.

If the minister will not reopen the deal with the provinces, will he now negotiate a new supplementary deal for all the rest of the hepatitis C victims?

[May Day, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since 1889 workers around the world have celebrated the history of our struggle on May 1. This date was chosen to commemorate the hay market massacre in Chicago where police opened fire on workers whose only offence was to demonstrate for the eight hour work day, something which we all take for granted today.

I am proud that in this country our labour code does enshrine workers rights. We are currently in the process of enhancing that code and strengthening it, in spite of an anti-union official opposition.

On May Day, Canadian trade unionists remember our own history of struggle. We commit ourselves with renewed determination to support the struggles of working people the world over.

Based on the principle that what we want for ourselves we wish for all people, we stand in solidarity with the Australian dock workers, with the workers on the roads in Burma, garment workers in Indonesia and in the maquiladoras in Mexico.

We all move forward when we move forward together.