Debates of April 9th, 1997

Budget Implementation Act, 1997

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Canada Labour Code

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know if my right as a member of Parliament to present petitions has been taken away from me today?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will realize that the effect of the vote is that petitions are not heard today.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-66 again, a revision to part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Certainly revisions to the Canada Labour Code are past due because there have not been any revisions to this part of the code in the last 20 years. It makes one wonder why the government is in such a hurry where this bill is concerned.

For the record I would like to clarify some allegations put forward by the Minister of Labour in answer to my colleague from St. Albert earlier today in question period.

When my colleague asked the minister why he was not removing the chairman of the CLRB for his alleged extravagances on his expense account, the minister asked why the Reform Party was not co-operating and was filibustering this bill. I believe the record should be set straight.

When this bill was brought to the House, the government asked if the Reform Party would concur to send it straight to committee before second reading. The Reform Party said it would be glad to oblige. We went directly to committee, heard witnesses and applied for some witnesses. We did not get every witness we would have liked but we understood that it went with the territory of being the third party in the House. However, we said that we would be constructive rather than obstructive, but the minister says we were filibustering.

Yesterday the minister alleged that we were actually filibustering. I cannot understand how in the world agreeing on our part to go directly to committee before second reading would be filibustering. That is rather a leap of logic.

When the bill came back to the House at report stage, the chief government whip asked if I would agree to extending the hours on this bill. I asked him how long that extension would be. He said that it would not be very long and so I and my party agreed. Again, how can this possibly be construed as filibustering the minister's bill? This is the second time we have bent over backwards to accommodate the minister. Filibustering, my foot. Accommodation.

The record will show that six members of the Reform Party have spoken to this bill. This is an extremely important bill particularly to western Canadians and to grain farmers in our area. It is not exclusive to grain farmers but it is definitely an area in which grain farmers are affected. Six of our members to this date have spoken to this bill. This is hardly a filibuster, even by Liberal standards.

I find the comments by the minister irresponsible and flippant. The comments by the minister have been extremely irrational. How can the minister say they read all about this in the newspaper and now they are going to check it out? Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the minister's responsibility to check these things out on an ongoing basis? Or does he not monitor the operations of his department and the boards that operate in that purview?

I certainly hope Canadians are paying attention today, the same Canadians who watched the irresponsible display from the minister during question period. I believe I have done my part to set the record straight.

The bill we are talking about has no provisions for final offer selection arbitration. True, it does have some provision for loading the grain products that reach the coast on to the ships once they are in the terminal elevator, but there is no dispute settlement mechanism. If there is a work stoppage, whether a strike or a lockout, in the grain handling system anywhere between the farm gate and the terminal in the next week or so, the government's reaction will be to enact back to work legislation. Part of that back to work legislation would be the use of final offer selection arbitration to bring the two sides together to solve the impasse.

If this tool is good enough to use in an emergency, on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis, which seems to be the way the government likes to run all its operations, why would it not be a good tool to have in place at all times?

[An hon. member]

It makes too much sense.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Far too much sense. With this bill the government and the minister have tried to placate the labour movement and the labour representatives in the Bloc and the NDP by bringing in back door anti-replacement worker legislation. It is neither fish nor fowl. It does not allow replacement workers and it does not

disallow replacement workers. It left to the discretion of the board; discretionary powers again.

Every piece of legislation we have seen in the House allows the minister and the governor in council discretionary powers. Here is a piece of legislation that allows the Canadian industrial relations board the discretionary power to rule whether replacement workers are an undermining factor to the existence of the union or whether they will be allowed and in what situations. Here we have another piecemeal situation where neither labour nor management has a clear cut definition of the status on replacement workers.

It has been pointed out many times before that we are talking about roughly 700,000 employees who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, people in the transportation, telecommunications and banking industries primarily.

It should be noted that this is not legislation that covers all other organized labour in Canada. There are roughly 700,000 people employed in Canada who will be affected by this bill.

Final offer selection arbitration is the one tool that we feel is very useful to both management and labour. It can be equally used. I have explained the mechanism in the House before but I do not mind doing it one more time for clarity. Anything this good bears repetition.

The bargaining process would go on as usual. We all know that in the transportation sector, in particular the railroads, the grain handling industry and the longshoring industry, labour and management do not seem to have much incentive to come to an agreement expediently. I say that because if there is an impasse both labour and management seem to take the position that it does not really matter how earnestly they bargain because if they come to an impasse the government will legislate them back to work. The stoppage, whether a strike or a lockout, will be of short duration. Where is the incentive for them to bargain in earnest?

I believe final offer selection arbitration would encourage them to go through the bargaining process. If they could not find a solution the onus would be on them to name a mutually agreed upon arbitrator, to list the areas in which they agree, to list the areas still in dispute and to present their final positions on those items still in dispute to the arbitrator for a decision. The arbitrator would not say that these are the two positions and he will make his judgment somewhere in the centre. His obligation would be to take all of one position or all of the other position; final offer selection. That is an incentive. That is the incentive for them to say they do not really want to use an arbitrator and get down to brass tacks and settle this thing themselves.

I am not singling out labour and I am not singling out management as being at fault. We have seen as many lockouts disrupt grain shipments as we have seen strikes disrupt the grain industry. This is not simply a plea for the farmers in my area. We are talking about a lot of other goods like potash, coal and even iron ore.

Speaking strictly for the farmers, not only is it an economic hardship to the farmers but it is an economic hardship to the entire country. When we cannot ship our grain to the west coast, get it on the ship and get it to our customers, not only are the farmers the losers but Canadians in general are the losers.

I talked to one of our colleagues the other day who said that while in China they were asked if Canada still produced grain. This was a shocking question. Of course we produce grain. We do not produce enormous quantities but we produce excellent quality grain in malting varieties, milling varieties, pasta varieties; all kinds of grains and oilseeds. The retort was "you would never know it because nobody comes over here to sell the stuff to us".

Canada has a lot of work to do as far as its reputation as an international reliable supplier of a quality product. We have no problem whatsoever with the production of grain. We could produce more grain if there were a market for it. Profit is not a four-letter word. Profit is what among other things keeps this place operating. It is what greases the wheels of industry. It is what puts people to work. It is what pays taxes.

If we cannot continue to be a reliable supplier of products, if our reputation is damaged to the point that buyers of grain in China think that Canada no longer supplies the stuff, our credibility as an international supplier is severely damaged. It is high time we did something about it.

Bill C-66 has provided us with one study after another. We had the west coast ports inquiry. We had the Sims report. I was fortunate to make presentations to both those task forces. I recommended to the Sims inquiry that the final offer selection arbitration be included in the recommendations to be included in the bill. During the Sims inquiry hearings I suggested that the 10-year appointment of the chairman of the CLRB was too long and should be reduced to five years. Perhaps, as it is coming to light, even five years is too long.

I return to my original point. I am appalled at the position the minister takes when he is questioned by my colleague with regard to what he will do about the chairman of the CLRB and his ridiculous expense accounts.

The most recent west coast ports strike in 1994 was estimated to cost around $125 million just in port costs. The indirect costs were said to be in excess of $250 million. Perhaps we have threatened as much as a half a billion dollars in future grain sales.

I have quite forcefully made the point that harmonious labour relations in Canada are certainly important. The bill does not do a lot to improve labour relations in Canada. It might do something to improve relations between the government and the Bloc Quebecois. I am not sure of that but it might. I do not think it gives labour and management the tools they need to resolve their differences.

Perhaps I should make it perfectly clear that we are not advocating government interference should be a factor in settling labour disputes.

We are making the point that final offer selection arbitration used to the ultimate would be not used at all. In other words, if labour and management did not reach an agreement among ourselves, they would say final offer selection is what the legislation obliges them to do. Therefore the onus would be entirely on us and agreement would be achieved between the two parties. That is always the best deal. A negotiated deal is always better than an imposed deal. The ultimate winners in this entire scenario would be the Canadian people.

We are considering the bill at a time when the Canadian economy can ill afford any more blows. We are considering it at a time when there is a high unemployment rate. Unemployment has been in the double digit range for the last 75 or 76 months. It is almost impossible to compare today's situation with what it was in the 1930s. I hope that we never get to that situation again. What is comparable is that at no other time in Canada's history other than the great depression in the thirties did unemployment remain at such unacceptably high levels for such a long period of time.

Anything this place can do to ensure that labour and management are a bit more harmonious or a lot more harmonious would certainly be welcome in the Canadian economy.

I see that my time is quickly drawing to close. I appreciate the opportunity of speaking once again to this important piece of legislation. It has a couple of redeeming factors, but it would have been nice if more members of my caucus could have had an opportunity to express their views.

I conclude by saying once more the co-operation we have shown to the minister in the processing of the bill can hardly be construed as filibustering.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague. He brought forward his ideas on how labour disruptions could occur much less often and be solved much more quickly. I agree with his ideas about final offer arbitration.

As I was listening to his speech I recalled a couple of years ago in the House at the time of the last major work disruption in grain shipments on the prairies. In my riding and province farming or agriculture is huge. It is the biggest industry in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

In thinking back to how the government handled the disruption at that time, I remember the government bringing in back to work legislation which the House was called back on a Sunday to pass. Since then I have been on radio shows a couple of times with the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who accused the Reform Party of not caring about western farmers because we did not show up on a Sunday to support the back to work legislation.

First, we supported the legislation because it was the best thing we had at that time.

Second, we asked for pre-emptive legislation prior to the strike so that it could not happen. Of course the government in its wisdom saw fit not to do it.

Third, the member for Lethbridge put forward a private member's bill on final offer arbitration, which was not passed, shortly before the strike.

On three occasions the government had the opportunity to stop a major labour disruption but saw fit to do nothing and to let it run its course.

There are something like 27 unions between the farm gate and the ports. Any one of the unions or any one of the management companies could either strike or lock out its workers. Something like 54 organizations could disrupt grain movement from Saskatchewan, from the farm gate to the ports. It is unacceptable that 54 groups could tie up the whole agriculture industry. When the big boys play, the farmers pay. That always happens.

Is my colleague convinced that final offer arbitration would solve and put an end to these labour disruptions in the future?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I do not know that any legislation could be a 100 per cent cure. There may still be some margin for error. However this will go a long way to settle the disputes my colleague talked about.

To put it in the farming vernacular, owners of livestock are obliged to keep them off the road so the public can travel without fear of running into livestock. They are supposed to use reasonable care and precautions to keep livestock from getting on to public highways. They put up fences which 99 per cent of the time keep the livestock in. There is no way under the sun they can ensure livestock will be in all the time. There is no way under the sun they can satisfy all demands of labour and management at all times.

Labour and management would be far better served by final offer selection arbitration than by back to work legislation after a work disruption takes place. That is basically equivalent, to use the farm

analogy again, to maintaining a proper fence or chasing livestock up and down the road trying to get them back in.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the government claims Reform was not here on that weekend to support its back to work legislation. I was here. I spoke for the full time I was allotted by the government. Many of my colleagues were here as well, notwithstanding the fact that we came from the farthest part of this great country to make our speeches. It was a very catastrophic time for a lot of people: for the rail companies, the farmers, the grain people and everyone else.

The member from Moose Jaw previously questioned my colleague. He pointed out that we tried to bring in pre-emptive legislation which would have prevented the strike but the government refused to it. We tried to get something done when CP Rail went on strike. Again the government did not do anything. It did not do anything until CN Rail went on strike.

There is a well substantiated rumour that the government was intentionally waiting until CN went on strike so that it could bring in legislation with a different type of arbitrated settlement and impose the kind of settlement that would enhance the viability of selling CN Rail so the government could look good. If something like final offer selection arbitration had been brought in, the government would have lost an opportunity.

Has the hon. member heard such rumours? Does he put any stock in them? Would he like to see something put in place to protect the workers of the rail companies with grain handling, all the people who are involved in such a nefarious plot by this government?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly my learned colleague, the transportation critic, has had his ear to the ground. Far be it from me to impugn the motives of the government but at the same time, I take great stock in the advice of my colleague, the transportation critic.

He asked specifically whether I would like to see protection in place for the workers. Absolutely. Protection is of ultimate importance. Workers have rights and they should have protection against such alleged manipulation for the sake of creating a certain political climate or saleability or non-saleability.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-66 and put a few things straight on the record.

First, as members may recall, the Minister of Labour at least twice this week has accused the Reform Party of filibustering this bill. I do not know whether it is because spring is coming or an election is coming, but the accusation by the government that Reformers are filibustering the bill is absolutely false and cannot be justified under any circumstances whatsoever.

This bill has been around for a long time. The hours of the House were extended one day so that the bill could be debated. The minister twists the record, falsifies the record of the Reform Party which has been willing to work with the government to ensure that legislation is passed.

The House did not start until two o'clock this afternoon. We have a short day on Wednesdays because the House is only open in the afternoon but under the House rules. This is deemed to be a whole day's debate even though it is only an afternoon's debate.

The government, for about the 38th or 39th time or whatever number of times it is, introduced time allocation and shut down debate on the bill. Not only that, but it had the gall to bypass part of routine proceedings so that the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley could not present her petitions.

Canadians cannot be heard. Private Members' Business, if there was any to be presented, was bypassed so that other members, apart from government members, could not be heard.

The minister of state for financial institutions got his motions on the books. He was able to refer his ways and means motions to committee. From that point on, when it came to the opportunity for the rest of the members, indeed the rest of the people in the country, to be heard the Liberals moved to government orders of the day, wasting time and preventing the Reform Party and the other parties from debating this bill.

Where are they? They are sitting quietly hoping that we will walk away and let this issue die. Then they can get on with the business and get it through the House. They can be off to an election a year and a half before they are supposed to go.

These are rather unusual times. The Minister of Labour is making these types of accusations. Today during question period, the Minister of Finance was up making a ministerial statement, taking away time from question period.

The Prime Minister is in Washington visiting our neighbours. When he was asked a question on illegal drugs, he thought it was good for trade. He has to pay attention. Not only should he be paying attention down there, he should start paying attention to what is going on in here. If he is out talking to the people around the country pretty soon at election time, he may find out what he thinks he is going to hear is going to be totally different to what he actually will hear on election day.

Bill C-66 deals with the labour code and the Canada Labour Relations Board. I have been having a debate with the Minister of

Labour during question period about the chairman of that board who I have said, on more than two occasions in the House this week, has to go. The Minister of Labour has said we should pass Bill C-66 in order for him to do his job and get rid of this fellow as the chairman of the board.

I cannot imagine why the minister would want to wait until Bill C-66 is passed. As we know, it is going to pass today because time allocation states "that is it, it is a done deal, stop, no more, vote". Since the Liberals have a majority it is a done deal.

I do not know what his excuse is going to be tomorrow when Bill C-66 is passed, because they have used the government majority, and Mr. Ted Weatherill is still chairman of the board. The minister will not be able to stand up in this House and tell us: "If we pass Bill C-66 I will be able to get rid of the chairman". By that time Bill C-66 will be passed.

I was reading in the Ottawa Citizen today on the front page ``Weatherill accused of bias in dispute. Reform charge comes on top of expenses saga''. As members know, this person who has gone into the public trough in excess. He is in over his head. He has jumped in all the way. He is swimming in it. This is a guy who spent $148,000 wining and dining around the world the last eight years. This is a guy who spent $440,000 of Canadians' money on an expense account because he did not really have to account for it.

He was given the privilege of having an open-ended expense account and said: "Boy, am I going to have a good time". He did have a good time: $733 dinners for two in Paris. That is more than the average family spends on groceries and more than many Canadians earn in a month. That person has the gall to think that he can justify spending that kind of money on dinner for two because he happens to meet somebody who he is impressed by, some professor from the Sorbonne University in Paris. Well, see if I am impressed. I am not.

This guy is the chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations Board. Members may find a hint of contempt in my voice when I talk about this gentleman because the Canada Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial body. It is governed by the rules of the courts. Mr. Speaker, you were a lawyer in a past life and you know about the courts. The rules of the courts state that you are impartial. Not only are you impartial but you must be seen as being impartial.

Let me quote from page A2 of today's Ottawa Citizen :

At least three members of the board, including the chairman, must be present at hearings. The chairman is, in effect, the chief judge of any dispute.

Although he is not called a judge, the chairman, because of the powers conferred upon him, is bound by judicial protocol, including the bias rule.

I thought this was an intelligent fellow. The article goes on to state:

An arbitrator or a board chair or a judge in the middle of a case should never, ever go out with one of the parties without the other being there.

This was said by Mr. Levitt. We are not talking about something that is controversial. It is very basic. It is not controversial and it is that obvious.

"Going out for dinner with one side and not the other isn't right," said Mr. Levitt. "Bias, in the judicial context, is not just a fact of bias-it is a reasonable apprehension of bias."

And a reasonable apprehension of bias would occur, he added, even if a quasi-judicial board chair takes out one side of a dispute on one occasion and follows it up the very next day with a meeting with the other side.

Have you ever heard of a judge doing something like that,Mr. Speaker? I have not.

He continues: "Even that is totally improper". Reading on, we find out that:

Mr. Weatherill presided over the hearings and deliberations. During that period he held the following meetings in Montreal:

This was a dispute between CN and CP on one hand and the unions on the other. I am going to start quoting again:

Nov. 7, 1990, Mr. Weatherill and CN's senior counsel John Coleman share a $213 dinner.

Feb. 7, 1991, Mr. Weatherill attends a reception for Don Fraleigh, CN's assistance vice-president, human resources.

Feb. 21, 1991, Mr. Weatherill and CP vice-president Robert Colosimo share a $227 dinner.

May 22, 1991, Mr. Weatherill shares a $164 lunch with CN's senior counsel John Coleman.

Nov. 14, 1991, Mr. Weatherill spends $264 to dine with CN's Coleman again-

In July 1992, the labour board ruled that the unions be disbanded and replaced with the CAW.

The minister has the gall to stand up and say today during question period: "I see it in the papers, but I was not aware of what is going on". Treasury Board knew what was going on. He, as the minister in charge, should have known what was going on. The government has been paying the bills and the minister says he does not know what is going on and he has to check it out because he has read it in the newspaper. This is the government that says it is in control. Have you every heard anything like that, Mr. Speaker?

What do the people think? I turn now to page A15 of the Ottawa Citizen :

The depredations of the notorious English highwayman, Dick Turpin, pale by comparison to the plunder of the public purse by Ted Weatherill. If ever the expression "Swilling at the public trough" has literal application, this is it.

Leo M. Bereza, Ottawa

How about another little short one? The whole page is of letters related to Mr. Weatherill.

Congratulations to the Citizen staff. You caught the "rat" in the food trap; this is good "gut" instinct reporting. With an election coming up, the taxpayers are soon going to be sold the fiscal restraint bill again. Public servant double-dipper Ted Weatherill positively sickens me. Out-of-control bureaucrats should all be given a season's pass to McDonalds's where the rest of us have to eat.

Robert Beck, Carp

How about this one entitled "I am not amused".

In common with thousands of other Canadians this is the time of year that I have to rework my finances to ensure I have funds available to pay my income tax. How appropriate then that we are all treated to the smiling face of Ted Weatherill along with his evasive responses to any questions that might justify his personal expense claims over the last number of years.

As I look at his photos one more time I am convinced that this man is not smiling at all. He is laughing at me-and I am not amused.

Don Ferguson, Nepean

The whole page is full of articles on this fellow who happens to be sitting in a high position with a $120,000 to $140,000 a year salary. He ran up $440,000 of expenses in eight years. He spent $148,000 on meals in eight years. He compromised himself. He compromised the board. He compromised the rulings of the board. He stays there and I wonder why.

The Minister of Labour says that he just read about it in the paper and he has to check it out. His department has been overviewing these expenses and paying the bill. It is absolutely shocking.

Is that all? I publish the waste report. It gets a bit of press around the countryside periodically. Last January when I brought out a waste report I pointed out the illegal tax scams carried on by political patronage appointments.

While the government would not give me the names, I was able to find out that a board member-and as far as I can tell it was not Mr. Weatherill but another board member-was getting a tax free allowance on top of his salary which is not covered off in the Income Tax Act. It is illegal that he should be getting that money tax free. I reported the information to the Minister of National Revenue.

That was not the only one. I listed eight or ten different people, all patronage appointments, who were participating in the illegal tax scam where they are claiming travel allowances, moving allowances, transitional allowances and apartments in a different town.

The Commissioner of Official Languages gets an apartment in town courtesy of the taxpayer. Everybody else has to pay tax. He seems to be exempted because the government says it does not to play by the rules it writes because it is above them.

The Minister of Labour is prepared to tolerate a chairman who thinks he is above the rules and has compromised himself in every which way. He sits there smiling in a photo on the front page of the paper and saying: "I m not going to quit". He is challenging the Minister of Labour and saying "fire me". I hope the minister fires him. It is long overdue and we have only known about it for three days.

The minister sweeps it under the table by referring it to the auditor general. He stands pleased as punch and says that when he found out about it he immediately referred it to the auditor general. The auditor general reports to the House. He will not be able to report back until the fall. If the rumour mill is right the election will be long over by then.

It is just like the Somalia inquiry. Let us bury it during the election time. Let us bury Mr. Weatherill during the election time and see what happens in the fall. That is not the way to govern.

The Liberals want to go to the people of Canada during an election and say they deserve their vote to continue. How could they look people in the eye? They have swept the garbage under the table so that Canadians cannot smell it. They will bring it out like dirty linen in the fall after they have been comfortably voted us back into office. How can they do it? It beats me.

We know the Liberals. They have been around for a long time. They seem to be able to do that with a smile. I am quite confident they will try to do it again. The point is that they can only deceive some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time. Perhaps this time they will find out they did not deceive very many people.

I cannot imagine why the Minister of Labour is hanging on to Mr. Weatherill. I have been on talk shows across the country regarding this man. No one is prepared to stand up and defend him.

The expenses are bad enough. However he cannot understand the situation of compromising his position, compromising his rulings, compromising his colleagues or compromising the government. It is documented. When we phoned CN and CP all they would say is no comment. They did not deny it. The minister stands by him and says that they have to wait until the auditor general reports some time in the future and at that time perhaps they will take action.

They have all the documentation at their fingertips now. They have had the information at their fingertips all along. They have known for years this guy went way overboard all the time, every time. He has never forgotten to claim even a two-bit cup of coffee.

He takes his common law wife with him and thinks we will pay for that as well. There seems to be no limit to what he will do. There seems to be no limit to the way he has compromised his position. Yet the Minister of Labour stands by him.

If this fellow is not gone in the next couple of days, at election time I will be asking why he is still there.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for St. Albert.

Not only on this bill but on many bills he has been very concerned about and very watchful of waste in the House. I am sure he finds it as galling as I do when members on the other side, the Minister of Labour and others, have the audacity to come into the House and claim that Reform is responsible for holding up the back to work legislation during the national rail strike. They claimed we would not come in on a weekend to assist in getting the bill through.

As I mentioned before when I rose in response to our labour critic's statements, we tried to prevent it from ever happening. Once the back to work legislation finally came forward we supported it. We were anxious to move it through because a lot of people were being hurt by the strike: workers, farmers and all others.

Consideration of the back to work legislation in the House extended into the weekend. I understand it cost many tens of thousands of dollars an hour to operate the House, money that came out of the taxpayers' pocket. As if everybody else was not hurt badly enough, the taxpayers were dragged into it as well. It cost the government money which it does not seem to mind.

Reform was supportive. We were here supporting the legislation. The Bloc Quebecois was holding up the bill, denying it swift passage.

As the hon. member is very involved and our watchdog on government waste, does he have any comments on the unspeakable bad taste of the government that came into the House and suggested Reform was holding it up when we were doing everything we could to assist in the passage of something that should have been passed long before. The problem was with the government's buddies in the official opposition who were objecting to the legislation being passed.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke is absolutely correct. We are accused by the government of holding up legislation.

This is a place of debate for the people of Canada. This is not an institution that runs on efficiency. The Minister of Labour accuses us of filibustering a bill, holding up the proceedings. He gave us approximately an hour and a half to debate the bill at third reading. It is preposterous. With an hour and a half or maybe two hours to debate third reading of the bill it is unimaginable we would be accused of holding it up.

We could look at the way the Liberals treat this place with contempt. I ask, Mr. Speaker, for a quorum count of the number of people in the House at this point to see the contempt. I only see three Liberals in this place at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes, the member is correct. We will ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is now a quorum.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the contempt with which government members hold this venerable institution. They were sitting in the back lobby enjoying the comforts of this institution with their feet up. Maybe they were wining and dining with Mr. Weatherill. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

We in opposition are entitled to a reasonable amount of time to debate the issue. For us to be accused of filibustering is preposterous. The Liberals made this place sit over the weekend because they did not have their act together and the Labour Relations Board could not resolve disputes regarding strikes. They had to bring in emergency legislation and spend more money for us to sit all weekend. Perhaps it is because they do not have any confidence in the chairman of the Labour Relations Board. We do not know but we sure know the guy was not too competent in doing his job. Maybe that is why we had to end up spending more money to sit all weekend.

The member is perfectly correct and the government should take heed.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my place when the member called for a quorum count. In defence of my colleagues who are also doing duty here, the member well knows that members have an opportunity to follow the debate.

The premise of the member's remarks is that members have not been allowed enough time. Anyone who has followed the debate would clearly know the gist of the intervention of the member has been complaining that there is no time rather than addressing the substance of the bill.

If the member feels it is important enough for us to move forward with legislation, possibly he would rise now to indicate that the Reform Party is prepared to close the debate now. Let us move to the vote on this important bill. The member should tell the House now whether it is his intent to support Bill C-66.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not whether or not I support the bill. This is a House of debate where opinions and views are heard. We are being accused by the government of filibustering. Yet we are given an hour and a half at third reading. We extended the hours to facilitate its agenda. Yet we get accused of filibustering. It

rejects our amendments. It does not listen to us in any way, shape or form because it uses its majority to say no. The whip cracks the whip and whatever we propose they oppose.

We have supported some of its legislation because we think it is good. When we make what we think are intelligent and good amendments to its legislation, because it comes from this side of the House they are automatically shut down. That is an abuse of the trust and the power the government has been given. The Liberals will have to explain that to the people at election time.

Almost 40 times they have introduced closure in the House in the time I have been in Parliament. It has now become a common occurrence. It is not even reported in the media any more.

When it was first introduced in the House it almost brought down the government. Then it sat latent for a number of years and was picked up again in the fifties and used on very rare occasions. Mr. Trudeau used it, I believe, about 10 or 15 times. Mr. Mulroney used it a few more times. This government has surpassed every record.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

The cumulative total of all past governments.