House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was union.

Topics

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the arrangements for the debate this afternoon which will begin later on.

The standing orders of the House were drafted to accommodate three parties in this House. The electorate has of course sent five.

I am seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion to alter the arrangements for the putting of amendments and subamendments to the budget debate. This would have the effect of keeping the Reform amendment before the House until the final day of the budget debate.

It would also permit the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party to put subamendments to the House for a vote as well.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I think we get the gist of it now. Does the hon. member have the agreement of the House to put forth a motion?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, it was apparent from the answer given by the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he was reading from polling data.

I ask that the minister table that poll in this House.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. minister has a document with him it seems. The page will pick it up and it will be tabled in the House.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the arrangements for the debate on the budget which will begin later this afternoon following the Conservative point of order.

The standing orders of the House were drafted to accommodate three parties in the House, but the Canadian electorate last June sent five parties to this House.

I am seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion to alter the arrangements—

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, there are two parts to putting forth a motion. The first is to get the approval of the House to put a motion and the second is to hear the motion itself.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put forth a motion?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, over the course of this Parliament we are using a 35 second time limit for questions and answers. But as a result of prolonged applause or heckling at times, I am experiencing that members of our party and I suggest other members of the House are often cut off because they do not have time to get their questions out.

I am sure the Speaker is cognizant of this but I would ask your indulgence at times when a person does not have the ability to put the question forward.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member's point is well taken. The hon. House leader of the Reform Party brought this point up to me earlier on.

I have taken it upon myself that where there is either prolonged applause or non-applause I give a bit of room. I hear where the applause starts and then I try to make the adjustment as close as I can. I will go over a bit, but not too much. This House has agreed that it will be 35 seconds for questions and 35 seconds for answers. I try to come in under that basis but members will have to leave me a bit of room to manoeuvre.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, it is illustrative to know that today the longest time spent in questioning was by the Conservatives. They averaged 42 seconds.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I am going to have to be like the referee in a hockey game. I am the only one who can bring in a whistle, which means a clock.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have seen today two points of order asking for a unanimous consent in the House.

Recently we saw in the House unanimous consent being asked five times in one day on the same issue. Would it be the Speaker's intention to hear this point of order identical to the one we have just heard from the NDP and the Conservatives?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Your Speaker would have to be clairvoyant to know what every member is going to say. I would have to hear what every hon. member has to say before I would make any kind of decision.

In direct answer to your question, I will hear as many points of order as the House would want me to hear. After I have heard up to a certain point where I can figure out what they are doing, I would put a question, for example whether there is permission to put a motion. We would go from there.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the matter has been clarified. It is important that the Speaker clarify this.

The point that was raised was that on occasion, given the rules of this House, unanimous consent is required in order to take a particular course of action. The point is that once unanimous consent is not given to a particular proposal, is it possible for that same proposal or that same initiative to come forward time and time again on the same day?

It seems to me if unanimous consent is denied when the question is put ab initio that should be the end of the matter for that day. Otherwise we are faced with a situation that defeats the whole purpose behind that rule that says you require unanimous consent in order to take a particular course of action.

If a single member of Parliament decides for whatever reason to deny unanimous consent in order to ensure that a particular initiative does not come forward on any given day, that person has to be glued to his or her seat for the entire day. That is not in keeping with the intent of that rule.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, instead of having a prolonged debate as to whether we should change the rules, I respectfully suggest to the House that in April we will be debating rules generally. These are points hon. members might want to bring up at that time, either for or against a particular proposition.

It is provided for in our rules and it is scheduled as per an agreement between House leaders to take place at some point in April.

I suggest that would be an appropriate time to make that contribution on the topic in question.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Once again, the rules of the House are those that have been decided by the House. I, like you, am bound by the rules. There has to be a certain sense of fairness and there has to be a certain flexibility in the House.

What if an hon. member brings up a point for unanimous consent and it is refused. The other House leaders could come together and decide that maybe there was a mistake and the same point is brought up again.

That is why I give myself and all the Speakers, of course, the latitude to at least hear enough to find out which way this is going.

I hope this would not be abused by members of the House where one or two or ten members would go through the whole thing. I think once we got the feel of it, we could make the decision at that time.

The House can take care of itself, I believe. We will continue to be as flexible as we can, always in keeping with the spirit of the rules of the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had five minutes remaining in his allotted time.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete a few thoughts I had regarding this bill.

Time is a wonderful thing for having Canadians look back on a bill with some reflection. Although we are discussing this bill at the present time, let us look down the road about a month's time.

Just like people now looking at the CPP, they now have some questions to ask about the government's investment board. Just like people who have recently passed Bill C-4, the Senate decided it had better have a better look.

We should have a permanent and fair resolution process in order, something that is far removed from the desires of the government, something that is far removed from the whims of the government at any time.

That is exactly what Reform's position is, something that will get government out and allow the employees and the employers to have a peaceful settlement over the course of action.

I want to draw one conclusion as it relates to some of the ambiguous terms of this. It says that this board that comes together can have a work stoppage if public health and safety are at risk.

In Saskatchewan we can have blizzards at any time. Many times we have blizzards without even the weather forecast coming in. The highway workers are on strike because public health or safety are not considered to be involved.

However, as my hon. colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands mentioned, what about ambulance services being involved? The highway workers are on strike and the roads are blocked. What if somebody dies on the way to emergency care?

This type of legislation does not solve anything now or in the future. We do not need government interference. What we need is for both parties to understand that they can rely on fair and equitable treatment to be in place and that the government's hands will be completely off. There will be a final selection arbitration which will be an effective tool and will permanently resolve all the disputes we have had in labour issues under the previous administrations.

I beg the House to take a good look at the bill. It does nothing to solve labour disputes in Canada.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-19, the Canada Labour Code part I amendments.

My colleagues have pointed out to the House some of the concerns we have as a party about the direction in which the bill is going. I echo those concerns.

I cannot understand how a government with clear conscience could take away individual rights as guaranteed under the charter. We have heard from my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast his concern about the sharing of names, addresses and phone numbers without the permission of individuals. I do not know if people can understand and appreciate how serious a violation that is of the Privacy Act.

We have had many conversations with the privacy commissioner on how difficult it is to protect the rights of individuals. When we see a government deliberately bringing in legislation that challenges one of its laws, in this case the Privacy Act, we have to wonder in what direction it is going.

Canadians should have the opportunity to understand that the government is washing over issues. It is changing the name of the Canada Labour Relations Board. It is becoming the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It is changing the term of the chair and the vice-chairs from 10 years to 5 years.

We have seen what happens when the government appoints people to such positions for one year or ten years and then tries to remove them because they are not doing the job properly or they are not being accountable.

This board will not be accountable to anybody. Somebody will be replacing Ted Weatherill. I do not know whether members have already forgotten about this individual who thought absolutely nothing of spending $700 for a dinner for two in Paris. That is the kind of judgment that will be leading this board. I understand he will be replaced by somebody who is more frugal, who understands that it is not his money but the taxpayer's money. Hopefully he will show greater leadership.

When a government appoints six permanent members and as many part time members as cabinet feels is necessary, it frightens me and it frightens Canadians. We have seen organizations like the parole board and the refugee review board that have expanded on patronage appointments. These boards are quasi-judicial and are not accountable to anybody. We cannot remove the appointed people unless there is criminal activity or something as great as that. They cannot be removed because they are incapable or incompetent to do the job.

It is up to cabinet to determine how many of these people are necessary. This removes from the House of Commons any ability to hold people on these boards accountable to Canadian taxpayers who are paying their salaries. In many cases we are talking about substantial salaries. We are not talking about a $7 per hour minimum wage.

It concerns me how the government continues a practice I have seen over the last four or five years of removing responsibility from the elected body, the House of Commons, and placing it in the hands of the executive body of government. By placing control and policy making in the executive branch of government, it is removing governance from the people of Canada. It is a very dangerous practice which the government continues to carry on.

If Canadians knew the degree to which this was occurring they would be very concerned to see that the governance of the country is being removed from elected individuals in the House of Commons who are accountable to the people, to a group of people who sit on the front bench and are not accountable to anybody.

That is another concern I have with this legislation, along with many others we have seen passed by the Liberal government. It goes in the wrong direction.

Another issue that causes me great concern is that the Canada Industrial Relations Board can certify a union without the support of the majority of employees. It flies in the face of democracy when a board, which is out of reach of anybody, can arbitrarily go into a business and declare there will be a union even though the majority of the employees do not want it. That is arrogance at the very worst.

I do not think Canadians appreciate that direction from the government. It is unconscionable to believe that the democratic principle of the majority of people making decisions that affect their livelihood is not being respected.

The government is throwing the weight of the executive branch over the elected branch, the elected House of Commons. The government is not respecting the privacy rights of every Canadian. The government does not support the democratic principle of the majority making decisions. What else will we see from the government? Those are the basics of a democracy. The government does not show an appreciation for that. Nor does it have any respect for that democratic process and principle.

What do we have in this piece of legislation? We have a situation where an individual can belong to a company. Maybe 30% of the employees decide they want to unionize for whatever reasons, perhaps because they have been pressured by individuals who know their addresses and phone numbers. The next thing we find is that the company has closed and moved out of town like we saw in Montreal not long ago. That takes jobs out of this country.

Maybe I got the message wrong, but I thought the government was concerned about jobs for Canadians. When a government starts bringing in legislation that drives the business community out of the country, the people who provide the jobs for young and old Canadians, what is the point?

If the government continually brings in legislation that forces the business community, either through legislative policies that interfere with the ability to operate a business in a profitable manner or through overtaxation, God knows how many business people such as the one I have spoken to over the years prior to the election, will actually leave Canada and go to the United States of America or even to South America.

If the government is intent on creating jobs and creating an environment to encourage business, to encourage investment and to encourage the creation of jobs, it is certainly going in the wrong direction. The government had better take another look at the legislation. It had better make some amendments to it or maybe even scrap it. I suggest it should do it tomorrow rather than leave it any longer.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, I count it a privilege every time I have the opportunity to speak in the House on behalf of the people of the constituency Kootenay—Columbia.

In my constituency I have quite a mix of people in terms of who they work for and what their jobs are. I would dare guess that approximately 20% to 25% of my workforce works in a unionized workforce. It is therefore important to put on record for them exactly how I see the bill and exactly how I see the impact there will be on workers.

There are companies and unions in my constituency. Most important, there are the people who live and work in my constituency. I am concerned primarily about the effect of this kind of legislation on the people in the unionized workforce.

There is deep concern about the fact that clause 50 of Bill C-19 allows the board to ignore the privacy interests of workers and to order an employer to disclose the names and addresses of “employees whose normal workplace is not on premises owned or controlled by the employer” if a trade union needs the information to solicit trade union membership. The Canada Industrial Relations Board should not be allowed to do this. Clause 50 should be repealed.

We have an issue in Canada of privacy of information. It is not right that unions should be able to exercise their ability under clause 50 to access private mailing information of workers. Why? Because we are not just talking about a union versus management situation. We are really talking about, to a very great extent, a union versus union situation or a recertification process that might be undertaken. The invasion of the privacy of the workers in my constituency is absolutely unacceptable.

The board is prepared to rely on the inherently unreliable and undemocratic card based system, even though in union raid cases the board has said:

Excellence has taught us in cases of union raids, a vote should be ordered so that the employees may choose freely, within the privacy of the polling booth, which union they wish to have as their representative.

That comes from a case between the Communication Workers of Canada and the Communications Union of Canada. One would think that the board would realize a vote should be ordered in all cases and not just in the case of a fight between trade unions.

The statement of Professor Paul Weiler of Harvard University is compelling. He states:

A secret ballot vote has a symbolic value that a card check can never have. It clears the air of any doubts about the union's majority and also confers a measure of legitimacy on the union's bargaining authority, especially among pockets of employees who were never contacted in the initial organizational drive.

A secret ballot, particularly in something as critical as whom the union will be representing or whether it should be certified or decertified, must be behind the curtain of a private ballot where each employee can make a choice without fear of coercion.

I am not suggesting that there are any unions or union organizers in my constituency who would do that. However we are talking about the entire country of Canada. We are talking about a very large workforce. Surely at some point there will be unfair, undue coercion.

Furthermore, we are in a democratic country where we can make choices about who will be elected to represent constituents in the chamber. By the same token workers must have an uncoerced right to make the choice of who will represent them in the workplace or indeed if they are to be represented.

Probably the most onerous part of the proposed legislation is that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will be able to override the vote should a vote take place. I submit that neither the Canada Industrial Relations Board nor any other body should have the capacity to rationally discharge a task which involves nothing more than wild speculation.

This section of legislation is targeted against employers who may become involved in an unfair labour practice. Again, nobody is without fault. Knives have a tendency to cut going in both directions. If some union organizers can get off base, surely from time to time some employers can get off base. But what is the remedy proposed?

The remedy proposed is that the board would override the democratically expressed will of the workers. For example, the dangers associated with this type of law were demonstrated when the Ontario Labour Relations Board, ignoring the will of the workers, certified the United Steelworkers of America as bargaining agents for workers in a Wal-Mart of Canada store in Windsor.

The House should know that the workers voted 151 to 43 against union representation. The Ontario Labour Relations Board, having determined to its satisfaction that there had been unfair labour practices, then simply overrode the will of the workers. This kind of law is very dangerous.

In the time I have had the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia, I have received many excellent representations from employers, from employees, from unions and from their workers. I have one such representation in my hand from some of the workers who are working with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. In the last labour dispute that was settled by back to work legislation, they have pointed out in a fair amount of detail exactly where they ended up getting the short end of the stick.

As a matter of fact, they have made the point that during the course of a year the locomotive engineers will actually be negative $8,700 of income as a result of that settlement.

I take this kind of representation from them, particularly when I receive it from individual members, very seriously. I recognize that in the back to work legislation that was cobbled together at the last minute by the Liberals there were areas that gave disadvantages to the workers in my constituency.

The Reform Party is simply proposing that rather than going into the band-aid approach and once again lurching forward to a point where there will be work stoppages, and unfortunately there will be work stoppages on the railway, with grain handling and other areas that are actually under the jurisdiction of this federal legislation, we recognize there will be work stoppages and we are saying that this legislation is grossly inadequate, does not answer the question and comes up with the problems that I have already detailed.

The Reform Party supports the concept of final offer selection arbitration. This is a preferred method of binding arbitration.

In taking a look at this proposal, it brings a new fresh approach to this very contentious problem. It puts the workers and the companies on an even plane but, most important, it deals with the issue of the tremendous national negative economic impact should a work stoppage occur.

I implore the government to set aside Bill C-19 at this point or at least if it gets through the House and gets into the committee to seriously take a look at Reform's idea of final offer selection arbitration. It would be good for the workers. It would be good for the companies. The most important thing is it would be good for Canada.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to stand in this place and speak about one of the most important and fundamental issues facing our country, the relationship people have with one another in the workplace.

I often think the role of government should be to reduce coercion. If we are a free democratic society that believes in the freedom of individuals, then the government should have a role to reduce the lack of freedom certain individuals have in the workplace.

I have had a varied work experience in my short lifetime. Having worked in locations with and without union agreements, it is not at all clear to me that the best place to work is where there is a union shop. There are pluses on both sides.

I remember fondly decades ago being a student and working as a truck driver. Members can see I picked up some of the truck driver characteristics and never lost them. I had a wonderful experience working for a Saskatchewan firm. I was able to earn $1 an hour and I made more money than I knew how to use. Educational expenses were reasonable in those days and I went year to year with a balanced budget.

I came out at the end without a debt. I had only my taxes to pay when I got my first job. That was my way of repaying the student loan which I did not have but which I am paying to this day, gladly so because my education provided me with a greater income and has provided me with the ability to pay higher taxes. I gladly pay them, to a limit.

I worked in a non-union shop. We were paid by the hour at the going rate. I was paid less than most of the people I worked with because I was part time student help. Some of the others in our shop were paid more. I benefited greatly from the fact this was not a union shop. I tried very hard. Since I came from a farm in Saskatchewan I learned to work hard and never to complain about long hours. As a result I ingratiated myself to the boss.

Since he had the flexibility not to give all the trips to the guys with the seniority, he gave me some of those long trips. He knew I could be counted on since I was one of those strange people who did not drink. He knew that if I went on a trip I would find my way home again. As a result I got priority over some of the others.

If that were a union shop there would have been trouble. The union would have said that another individual had seniority and should be able to get the job. Our business did well. I say our business because I felt a part of it. I was a good contributing member of the business. I did my best and we had a good relationship, a win-win relationship.

I contrast that with other situations in which I have worked where the union was involved and where I got the short shrift as part time help. The union was not there to help me at all. The union was there simply to enforce a pecking order which had been established over time and gave no one the chance to move up in the ranks unless somebody older and more experienced died or left the business. That does not provide for high motivation.

I am not anti-union. An examination of my work history will reveal that I have been a union steward, I was the president of a local in a place I worked. We were forced members of the union. I remember being greatly offended by the fact that the union to which we were forced to belong actually used a portion of our union dues for political party contributions. I will not mention which political party it was but members can probably figure it out. Unions have a symbiotic relationship with at least one of the parties in this country, a relationship I do not particularly agree with.

The union was able to have a rule that the place where I worked required that I belong to the union, it required that I give it money and it required that I support a political party which is 180° out of sync with my true beliefs.

I think other people would feel just as bad. I sincerely hope those union members who are strong supporters, for example of the NDP, would be very offended if that union decided to give a strong political donation to the Reform Party. I hope they would be offended and would say “you cannot do that, that is my money”.

The point I am making is that we need to have more individual freedom. I think that when the marketplace prevails we will find that a very good economic balance is reached between employers and employees 99.9% of the time.

I remember, again looking back before we were forced members of the union at the place where I worked, I was an instructor at a technical institute. It was run by the Government of Alberta. It was before the union there was a forced issue. We did not have a union when I first started there. One year the institute had trouble getting instructors. The economy was booming and the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology had the policy of trying to get the best. That is I suppose how I got there. I was just wondering whether anyone was listening. It had trouble getting qualified instructors. In the middle of the year without any negotiations suddenly there was an announcement of a pay increase.

Later on we had a union. The same issue came up. The employer said they wanted to open the contract so they could increase the salary schedule. The union said they could not do it because there was a union contract which goes for two years and it could not be opened unless they opened the whole thing. It would not just open the money clauses. To me that is so totally absurd. It is a total infringement of individual freedoms.

I have just given a couple of examples of when one is forced into a union where one loses one's freedom, loses bargaining position and to a certain degree loses benefits.

I am going to give the other side as well. I have also seen situations where individuals have not been fairly treated. The contract has not been fairly applied to them for one reason or another or they have been mistreated by supervisors. I was involved as the president of the local branch of the union. I went to bat. I think even if a person is innocent he deserves the right to a fair and prompt hearing, trial or whatever we want to call it. So we supported each other that way. There is some merit in that.

Do not read into it that I am anti-union. What I want to do is make unions more democratic.

In this bill we have before us today unions are strengthened. To me that is upsetting a balance. It is an intrusion of an unnatural force in the relationship between employers and employees.

I have been involved in a number of cases where we have had contract disputes. After we were forced members of the union for a number of years it was decided that our institute, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, would go to a board of governors. I was honoured by my fellow staff members, 750 of them, to be selected as the founding president of the academic staff association at NAIT. One of the first things we did was bargained away our right to strike because we found that nobody wants the right to strike. If the right questions are asked they will say emphatically “I do not want the right to strike. I do not want the right to be without a job and without an income. What I want is a fair income. What I want is to be treated fairly”. That is what they really want.

Unfortunately the means to the end, the strike process has sort of juxtaposed itself into it and now there are members of the union and the NDP who claim that it is an indistinguishable right to belong to a union and to strike when that is not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is to achieve their monetary and job security goals.

I found that in my work as academic president when we made arrangements to have a dispute resolution mechanism, with time lines and arbitration, everything worked out a lot better.

I hope that I will get another opportunity to speak on this topic when it comes up for third reading.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I have enjoyed the hon. member's remarks but his time has expired.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I too have enjoyed his remarks. I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue with his remarks in keeping with your enjoyment.