Debates of Feb. 24th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this bill. It is one of the most debilitating bills that has ever entered this House.

When all the countries in the world are moving away from this whole concept of forced unionism, forced compliance to join unions, Canada is going in the opposite direction. Some 101 countries have legislation to prohibit closed door operations like unions. Canada and Australia are the only two countries that look in the other direction. This bill is moving in the opposite direction to that of the rest of the world.

I listened to the dissertation of the Bloc member in which he talked about Quebec. Knowing it is coming from the Bloc, everything is about Quebec. There is nothing about the rest of the country although they sit in opposition. I will ask the member from Quebec about his charter of rights and freedoms.

The province of Quebec has a charter of rights and freedoms. Section 10 states that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms without distinction, exclusion or preference. Section 13 states that no one may in a judicial act stipulate a clause involving discrimination. Such a clause is deemed without effect.

In this bill there is a violation of human rights. Part of that violation centres around the release of names to a union of those who are working off site. The member over here called those individuals scabs. I do not agree with that. I think they are legitimate people trying to earn a decent living. They are filling a vacancy—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Lévis in response.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to respect the opinions of the Reform member, because he is saying that we in the Bloc defend the interests of Quebec. I will not deny it. He is absolutely right.

The Bloc Quebecois is here mainly to defend Quebec's interests. Our candidates ran only in Quebec—as you can see, we have no members from Ontario or the West—but we still maintain a dialogue with people from the other provinces, like those in the West.

The difference is obvious. I am not saying my colleague does not represent his part of the country well, but there is clearly a different mentality. I have always maintained there were two countries within Canada, and the Reform member is confirming the fact. Things are quite different in Quebec.

However, it bothers me to hear people saying that giving more rights to workers as a group is a step backwards. When we respect individual rights more, it is in fact a step forward. This is not what we are seeing in the western world. The 101 countries—I do not know where he got them from—but, generally speaking, the number of social measures in OECD countries is on the rise.

On the subject of the Quebec charter of rights, he forgot a number of sections. He might also have mentioned the United Nations' charter. It supports freedoms of expression and of association. Employees of a company have the fundamental right to join together in a union to collectively defend their individual rights. As individuals, they could never manage it on their own.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right off I would like to say how much pleasure it gives me to speak to this bill, especially to two parts of it.

Before my election to Parliament in 1993, I worked in labour relations for 16 years. I was able to see, through my own experience, how a labour relations system should be built to ensure harmonious relations in an organization. This is the aim.

The aim primarily is to ensure the parties agree and that they provide for mechanisms to settle their disputes. The situation would essentially be the same in a relationship or in a household when, in the course of a row, one person brings out the marriage contract and says it contains no provision for what the other wants and so the other does not need it or is entitled to it and so on. It would not be a pleasant situation.

We do not always carry a collective agreement around in our pockets. What we are talking about is GCS, as we call it, good common sense, where the aim is to try to reach an understanding. Unfortunately, there can be hitches, as there are in a relationship, and if the hitches are major, separation has to be considered as a possibility.

What I want to say to you is that Quebec is in the forefront in labour relations, despite what my colleague, the member for Calgary Northeast, may think when he cites various pieces of legislation. I am not alone in saying that. Our viewers are should read with papers on labour relations. Whether they be by professors from York University in Toronto or Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, everyone agrees that Quebec is a leader in labour relations. Should we apologize because we are at the front? Should we bring up the rear? The fact is, we are in the forefront.

In second place in the field of labour relations is British Columbia. I believe that province elected 24 or 25 Reform members in the recent elections. My numbers may not be quite right, but there are a good many Reform members from British Columbia, another province leading the field.

I therefore hope that Reform members who, like us, must be in close touch with their constituents, will be representing the views of the majority of those who voted for them. I have pointed this out at the beginning of my speech so that members will understand where I am coming from.

Second, I would like to mention a current situation that is clear proof of a misinformation campaign by our Liberal friends opposite. As the transportation critic, I was phoned at home on the weekend by workers governed by the Canada Labour Code. I also received faxes at the office. Basically, the comments were as follows.

I will read one of them: “This week in the House, the Bloc Quebecois said it was not supporting Bill C-19, primarily because it did not contain antiscab legislation”. That is true. “The Bloc Quebecois' message was heard loud and clear this week”. That is true. There is no longer a need to hold up this bill in the House. That is true.

Another comment reads: “I am worried by the fact that the Bloc Quebecois still intends to have four or five members speak in the House when the planned second reading resumes today, February, March 24. If you must speak in the House at this point, please do not prevent second reading from wrapping up on Tuesday the 24th. There is no point in delaying a bill”.

I have many examples of comments that were faxed to me.

What is going on is obvious. I asked the workers who telephoned me over the weekend why they were calling us. The Bloc Quebecois is not filibustering over Bill C-19. We are simply here to express the unanimous position of the labour relations community in Quebec. As proof, I will quote from the briefs of three central labour bodies, which were presented during hearings held in 1995 to examine this legislative reform before the standing committee responsible for labour issues.

The CSN's brief reads as follows: “To begin with, it should be remembered that antiscab provisions did not meet with unanimous approval when they were first introduced in Quebec. These fears proved unfounded, so unfounded that antiscab provisions are now no longer questioned, and can be said to be generally accepted in Quebec”.

According to the FTQ's brief, “it is essential for workers under federal jurisdiction to be able at last to benefit from anti-scab legislation. The federal code must be amended to include all those who work for crown corporations or private companies”.

The CLC stated it was their “firm opinion that employer use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts imposes needless and harmful tensions on labour-management relations”. Unfortunately, I must reply to them on television because I have been unable to contact them.

I find the Liberals' misinformation campaign indecent, to say the least. They have managed to plant the idea into these workers' heads that the Bloc is responsible for delaying passage of Bill C-19. We do not agree with the bill, but we are not filibustering on it.

We do not agree with the bill, particularly because there is no anti-scab clause. There are five or six points in all on which we do not agree. Our colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, illustrated those points very well yesterday. Why are we saying we do not agree with this bill because it contains no anti-scab clauses?

We have a wonderful motto in Quebec. Our motto is “Je me souviens”, I remember. We remember the United Aircraft, now Pratt & Whitney, dispute at Longueuil, in 1976. We remember the numerous and endless postal conflicts over the past 30 or 35 years, when fights actually broke out. We remember the 1973 conflict at Montreal radio station CJMS. We remember the Nationair conflict, when they kept their flights going by using strikebreakers.

We remember the Ogilvie Mills conflict, in which CSN members faced a multinational that was intent on crushing them. We remember the Royal Bank—the poor old Royal Bank, with its billions in profits in 1997—and its conflict in Kénogami from 1980 to 1982, which lasted close to a year and a half.

“Je me souviens”, I remember the strike currently going on in the Quebec City port. I also remember the recent strike of Air Alliance pilots, who worked hard to have their rights recognized, while their employer was renting aircraft from the private market to continue to fly people, even though the company's pilots were on strike. This is why I say to Air Alliance pilots that we agree Bill C-19 will correct certain things, but we also know that, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility, which is to condemn injustices and to make sure the Liberals make good on their commitments. The Liberals use double talk: they say one thing when they sit in opposition, and another when they are in office. The Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Not the Bloc Quebecois. We are here to defend the position and the rights of Quebec's workers. It is unacceptable that the 115 000 workers who have the misfortune, if you will, of being regulated by the Canada Labour Code cannot enjoy the same protection as those covered by the Quebec labour code.

Why should workers governed by the Canada Labour Code be treated like second class citizens? This is totally unacceptable.

We know that Air Alliance pilots, who are currently involved in a dispute with Air Canada pilots, will benefit from the bill. Therefore, it is out of the question for the Bloc Quebecois to unduly delay this legislation. As parliamentarians, we have a job to do and we hope the bill will follow its course. It will be referred to a committee that will hear witnesses who will submit briefs. The Bloc Quebecois will not delay the process in any way.

What do we want first and foremost? We want social peace and harmony for Quebec businesses.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on behalf of my constituents at this point. I have three questions for the hon. member.

There have been at least two bills in the last week that have come before this House, extreme government bills, that have really polarized the people rather than bringing them together. The speech which was just given is a prime example of one region being pitted against another region through this bill, as it was through Bill C-4. I want to give three examples and three questions to illustrate what I am talking about.

The Crow benefit was done away with by the Liberal government a few years ago with the intention that it would promote diversification. We now have Bill C-19 before the House which works contrary to that. The diversification is now beginning to take place. Farmers are beginning to grow products besides the traditional grains. One example is that they are going into the cubing of alfalfa, hay. They are making these into cubes. That is not included in this legislation, so it discourages farmers from trying to diversify because it is not included. I do not know if that is an oversight by the government, but it is serious concern of the people in my riding.

They should not simply have a few products covered by this. It should include all products. Farmers do not just grow grains anymore. The government should take that to heart. My question is should all products not be included?

The second thing the member talked about was strike breakers or scabs as some of the Bloc people are calling them—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but we have only five minutes for questions and comments. There is another to come. We must give the hon. member time to respond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member only had the time to talk about alfalfa; however, I would have liked him—but I am not surprised as you must maintain control over our proceedings—to ask me about strike-breakers.

I must say that I am much more interested in his opinion on the anti-stribreaking provision than his comment on alfalfa and growing alfalfa with other types of grain, or who should be in charge of applying the labour code. I will just respond briefly to the first part of his remarks.

Last week, three bills were introduced, showing polarization between regions of Canada. It is true that there are many provisions that cause a polarization between regions of Canada, and that is why we in Quebec consider at any rate that your country is not necessarily our country. That is why we say the current system does not work.

Because of the distinct nature of Quebec, we feel there should be new talks leading to a new partnership between the two sovereign states of Canada and Quebec. This polarization is becoming increasing clear, and the current Liberal government tends to prove it.

We are looking forward to the next referendum, when, three days before referendum day, the rest of Canada will come and tell us how much they care. I cannot wait to see that. After all the instances of polarization since 1995, they come and tell us “We love you, Quebec”. You mean “We love you, Quebec, when you are on your knees”.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A 30 second question and a 30 second response.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you are asking the impossible but I will try.

One thing that was not addressed in any of the presentations thus far was the Canadian Industrial Relations Board and its powers, authority and how it plays out in the whole scheme of things when it comes to labour relations.

This board is set up much like the immigration refugee board. It is at arm's length from the minister. Because it is at arm's length from the minister, who is going to be accountable for the decisions made by the board?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree totally with the hon. member's position. I think it should be developed during clause by clause study of the bill. She made an interesting comment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I thank both members for their brevity.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I stood up to ask a question but, you will notice that, on your left, two members of the Reform Party were given the floor. I would have liked to ask a question, but time is running out. I would have liked to talk about strike-breakers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Abitibi will be first on the list when the opportunity arises to ask questions of the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. Resuming debate.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-19, proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code. I hope Canadians watching these debates will take special notice of what the government is trying to pull on us here, because this is a very important debate which has tremendous ramifications for Canadian workers, for the bargaining units that represent them, for business and job creators and therefore for the well-being of our society, particularly for the democratic rights and freedoms which we thought we enjoyed in this country and which the Liberals are substantially attacking with this terrible piece of legislation.

This legislation completely violates fundamental Canadian values and denies basic protections to Canadian workers. This concerns the official opposition and I hope all opposition parties tremendously. I hope government members will stand up and demand that this piece of legislation be taken away from the table of this House until the flaws and the damages that it would perpetuate on our way of life and on our democratic rights and freedoms are rectified.

There is a real difference between this piece of legislation and the Sims task force review on the Canada Labour Code that supposedly was the basis for the legislation. The Sims task force reported. It did its work in 1995 and came out with a report called “Seeking a Balance”.

The Liberal government is big on the word balance, and in this case of course the word balance referred to the quest for balanced labour legislation. Instead we have a piece of legislation that is terribly unbalanced and which will cause real harm to the workers of this country, the very people the labour code is supposed to protect. This is something we simply cannot allow to happen.

In addition to the violation of the rights of workers, this piece of legislation will be completely injurious to the economic well-being of our country. As we all know, industry is key to the competitiveness of our economy.

Because we have a small population we particularly need strong and vigorous exports, industries, development companies, all the kinds of economic activities that add to our national wealth. The government has done much singing and dancing about its supposed dedication to creating opportunity in this country. We have loudly publicized Team Canada visits to other countries, trade missions to expand export opportunities for Canadian businesses.

Here we have a piece of legislation that has the very strong potential of completely reversing the whole thrust of this so-called jobs and opportunity strategy of the Liberal government.

There is a very real potential that existing jobs will be exported, not our products, our services, our knowledge or our technology. Perspective jobs that could have come to Canada will simply never be realized.

If the labour climate in this country is such that companies and services find other locations in which to operate, it is very difficult to get those decisions reversed.

I do not have to tell the young people watching this debate that there is nearly 17% youth unemployment in Canada. There is a higher unemployment rate overall. There are Canadians who desperately need the jobs this labour bill is going to substantially attack.

We want security for our families, for ourselves and for our futures. The best way to obtain that security, that quality of life and that peace of mind is to have stable jobs with stable incomes. Yet what we have here is a piece of legislation that is going to make business think twice before continuing operations in Canada, expanding operations in Canada or even locating in Canada in the first place.

No wonder there is a tremendous brain drain beginning from our country to other countries which have a much more balanced approach to the way labour and labour relations issues are treated. This legislation is an attempt to completely unbalance the way these issues are treated and we simply cannot allow that to happen without strong protest and without urging the Liberal government to rethink this bad piece of legislation.

There are six areas at least, probably more, in which this legislation will be bad for Canadians, for their job opportunities and which will injure the interests of the workers of this country, the very people this kind of legislation is supposed to protect.

I could spend more than my allotted time on any one of these points. I know many of my colleagues will be expanding on these points. However, I would like to briefly touch on each of them so that the Canadian public has some idea of why we are so gravely concerned and so negative about this legislation.

First, as I have already mentioned, the whole issue of democratic freedoms and process in our country is tremendously undermined by what is happening in this bill. Secret ballot voting for those who would represent Canadian workers as bargaining units is not required. If members can believe this, Canadian workers in federally regulated industries do not have the right to cast a secret ballot as to who they really want to represent them. This violates the whole charter guarantee of freedom of association because you cannot be truly free unless you have a truly free expression of your will.

Canadian employees, if they are to have the right to freely choose a union to represent them in collective bargaining with their employer, must really have freedom. The only way to ensure the choice is freely made is through the democratic process; that is, a board supervised, secret ballot vote in every single instance. Shockingly this basic fundamental right which is part of Canadian traditions, values and beliefs is entirely missing in this piece of legislation.

Furthermore this totally undermines the legitimacy of our bargaining units. There are bargaining units and unions in this country with the best interests of workers at heart which want to protect them and speak for them and be a voice for them. Yet without being legitimately chosen according to the democratic traditions of our country their legitimacy is in question. Employee wishes will not be validated in the most basic way. The unions will not be sure they have support and legitimacy. There will be no way for the unions to know if the workers are behind them.

The legislation proposes a card certification, that is, if the union organizers get enough cards signed by workers then they can be certified. Imagine if members of Parliament were elected the same way. Imagine that they went from door to door to solicit voters to sign cards saying “I will vote for you”. Imagine if the candidate who had the most cards signed was elected as a member of Parliament. Would we feel in Canada that we had legitimately expressed our wishes as to who we wanted to represent us by having to say yes or no to candidate A , B or C at the door? Would we believe this was democratic?

That is how the Liberals feel the Canadian workers should have a bargaining unit selected. It flies in the face of every tradition we have. It is an absolute travesty of democratic principles.

I would like to point out that in supervised secret ballot votes in the jurisdictions in Canada where they are required, the certification level is very high. It validates unions, rather than stopping them from being able to do the job of representing Canadian workers.

For example in Alberta from 1993 to 1994, the board processed 205 certification applications. Out of that number, 116 were voted on and 74% achieved certification. That is consistent with what happened in other years in Alberta. In fact there was 100% employee turnout in 33% of the votes held. The average turnout for voting was 70%.

Workers in our country want to participate in a free, fair and democratic manner in choosing who will represent them, but the Liberals have denied them that in this legislation. It is a shame.

There is a tremendous privacy issue in the bill. As other speakers have alluded to, employers can be forced by the board through this legislation to provide the names and addresses of off site employees to would be union organizers without the knowledge and consent of the workers. As well, employers can be ordered to give electronic communications access to the workers, again without their knowledge and consent.

This comes from a government which claims to care about privacy. It is absolutely shocking. The previous justice minister pledged that by the year 2000 there would be a federal law to provide “effective enforceable protection of privacy rights in the private sector”.

The House of Commons standing committee on human rights devoted the better part of a year in the last Parliament to the study of privacy rights and visited several cities and heard from scores of witnesses representing every shade of opinion.

In April as the House was rising for the election the committee released its report “Privacy: Where do We Draw the Line?”. The report is nothing less than breathtaking in its scope and depth. It recognizes that privacy is a fundamental value to Canadian society and not a “token to be bartered for social and economic benefits”. One committee member describes privacy as an associative right, one that is essential to free association, such as trade unions, free speech and to our very autonomy.

Here we have a strong validation by this very government in the strongest possible terms of a commitment to privacy. Then what they actually do, as so often happens with these Liberals, is they do something to completely and utterly violate the fine words that they are very fond of quoting.

If your walk does not match your talk, you have a credibility problem. This government has no credibility now when it comes to a stated commitment to protecting privacy because it has been completely violated.

In fact Mr. Phillips, the privacy commissioner told the Senate committee when it was studying the former iteration of this bill that the provisions of this labour bill are completely and absolutely unacceptable.

Where will there be protection for Canadian workers' privacy unless the opposition, and members of the government who care about privacy and about that value we all hold so strongly in this country of individual liberty, force the government to rethink this bad piece of legislation? This bill is completely bad.

There is the whole idea of the remedial certification where any breach of labour practice by employers means that the other side automatically wins. This calls for judgment calls on the part of an unaccountable board which until just recently was headed by someone whose judgment was so bad that he spent $700 of taxpayers' money on lunches in places like Paris. These are the people who on behalf of Canadian workers are making decisions that are based on nothing more than wild speculation. This is completely unacceptable.

There is also the whole idea of replacement workers. We should be under no illusions that the unions regard this provision of the act as a complete ban on replacement workers, given the board's past history. Where is the balance?

Again, businesses will take note that they absolutely have no recourse to keep their businesses going in the collective bargaining process. They are simply not going to feel that doing business in this country has enough checks and balances, protections and safety to make it worthwhile for them to locate in Canada.

Who loses? Workers lose and Canadian young people lose because we have such an unfriendly atmosphere toward the very things we need the most, which are job creators and people who take advantage of economic opportunity. We tie their hands and gag them with red tape and expect us to have good jobs with good incomes. It will not happen.

This legislation eliminates the need for unions to report on their financial status. These organizations deal with millions and millions of dollars of workers' money. There will be absolutely no accountability, no regulations, no way workers can be assured there are checks and balances on the discretion of these individuals who have statutory rights to require them to pay hard earned dollars into the organization that they did not even freely choose. They may not even have wanted to be part of that organization, yet there is no accountability.

Something too that is very disturbing, and I wish I had more time to talk about it, are the provisions in the bill that will effectively allow the minister by order in council, with no democratic debate and no open discussion, to suspend open tendering of contracts in the federally regulated sector. What again could be more injurious to the collective bargaining process and the freedom of operation in this country than that provision which effectively says that there cannot be a free tendering process in contracts in the federally regulated sector?

I appeal to members of this House to look at this legislation. It violates not only basic democratic principles, not only the basic privacy of workers but also the very freedoms and legitimacies of business and labour that give a viable and dynamic aspect to our economic life here in Canada.

We are not going to rest until these very serious issues for Canadians are dealt with. This is a bad piece of legislation. This injures Canadian workers. It violates their rights. It is going to limit economic opportunities for workers and for all Canadians. We cannot sit by while this happens.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask the hon. member a question on strikebreakers.

Before she spoke, I listened to the Bloc member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans speak about strikebreakers in Canada. He said: “I remember”. He mentioned a number of strikes in Canada involving the use of strikebreakers.

He forgot the latest strike in Canada, the one at Canada Post. The Minister of Labour refused to use strikebreakers. Now that is an example of leadership by a Canadian minister who listens to workers.

Can the hon. member tell us whether she agrees that, during a work stoppage, the union or management will have to maintain essential services in order to avoid immediate and serious risks to the health and safety of the public and whether the legislation should contain anti-scab provisions, which is the case in Quebec at the moment, because good relations must be maintained between employers and unions?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the post office strike the government had a far heavier hammer than strike breakers. It had legislation and brought it in to stop the strike. If that is not breaking a strike, I am not sure what is.

What we need in this whole area is balance. The only recourse a business has if the business cannot keep going during a lawful strike is to either let the business go under, as happened just recently with Maple Leaf Foods, or cave in to whatever demands are being made in the bargaining process, no matter how unreasonable or economically injurious they are.

Is that what the member is suggesting happens, that the hands of one of the parties in the bargaining process be completely tied behind their back with no recourse? Is that the kind of balance the Liberals are suggesting happens or are the Liberals just saying “If it really gets bad, we will just legislate everybody back to work and we will not have to worry about the whole issue”?

That is completely hypocritical and it is not going to help good labour relations and peaceful work experiences in the Canadian economy for workers.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my, my, my. Listen to the Reform Party talk about unions.

Being a labour activist for many years and being part of the Canadian auto workers for the last 18 years, I have to say that I take offence with the Reform Party when it says that unions are not democratic. The fact is they are probably the most democratic organizations in this country, if not more so than this House.

I have worked with them. I can guarantee that the CLC for example which covers 2.3 million unionized workers is the most democratic organization in this country. If members do not believe that, I encourage them to spend a weekend with unionized workers to understand exactly what is going wrong.

One of the most offensive things that happens to bargaining and to unionized people is when employers have the right to scab labour. The member was talking about the fact that unions make unreasonable demands but she does not mention the fact that some employers make unreasonable demands on their labourers.

We have to argue this point in light of both facts. When we go to arbitration or any kind of labour relations, which I have done for many years, the use of scab labour, the threat of scab labour and the threat of back to work legislation deflate rank and file workers. It is unacceptable that scab labour is still allowed. My party and I would definitely vote for any legislation that outlaws the use of scab labour or forced back to work legislation.

In my most humble opinion anything that would violate a union is the Reform Party. We are the only federal party in the House with a staff that is unionized, has an association and bargains for its rights in Ottawa. No other official party in the House allows its staff to organize or unionize. We encourage our staff to organize and unionize under an umbrella.

I would love to see the Reform Party encourage its staff to do the same so its staff can argue in balance for fair wages and fair compensation.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had listened to my remarks. I said that the legislation was completely undemocratic, that it violated democratic principles.

A union can operate very democratically. I am glad to hear the member has had experience in a union that does. If a union is not democratically chosen, what democratic legitimacy does it have in the first place, no matter how it operates after the fact?

The member talked about unreasonable demands being made by employers. Unreasonableness is not the sole purview of employers and management. It is unfortunate but true that unreasonableness sometimes rests in the bargaining unit, in unions. What will protect workers in a balanced way from being pulled apart by these two competing interests? Only balanced legislation.

I see why the hon. member wants to ensure that his union bosses and the unions that pay most of the money to keep his party going have full and free flight in whatever they want to do. I understand why he is flying the flag of the unions and his union bosses. I can perfectly understand that, but who cares about the workers?

Who cares to ensure that workers who want to keep their jobs and good relations with the people offering them economic opportunity also have some reasonable freedoms and some cards on the table when it comes to the bargaining process?

The bargaining unit must be free and fair and able to stick up for the needs of workers. The other side that wants to provide long term employment and economic opportunities must have some cards to bargain with. We are asking for balance that protects workers and serves their interests and not just those of the union bosses of the NDP.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it might come as some shock to many workers in Canada to hear the Reform Party supposedly defending them. It is a little difficult.

The member said that the legislation is in effect a ban on replacement workers. That is not true. In the legislation there is a right for a business to keep working, but if it uses replacement workers to bust a union the board has the authority to outlaw it.

The hon. member would try to perpetuate that somehow there is a total ban on replacement workers and it is exactly the opposite.

On democratic principles the board shall have a vote on between 35% and 50% of the cards signed by the rank and file. That is what they say they want. If there is clear indication that members want to certify with a union and there are in excess of 50% of the membership signing cards, the board has the authority to certify without a vote.

Let us be clear. If there is any indication whatsoever of unfair labour practice on the part of the union organizers intimidating people to sign cards, the board can either deny certification or require a full vote. The member should put the facts on the table so we are clear about what we are dealing with.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult for NDP and Liberal members of the House who have unreasonable prejudices and misconceptions about Reform to give any credit.

I can assure the people of the country that the official opposition has a commitment to protecting the interests of workers no matter what the myths and the misconceptions are on the other side.

We understand why they want to see everything in black and white. That is simply not the case. Reformers are workers. Reformers are union members. Almost half the union members vote for Reform in federal elections. We are committed to their protection and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

The Sims report which gave rise to this piece of legislation states explicitly:

—replacement workers can be necessary to sustain the economic viability of an enterprise in the face of a harsh economic climate and unacceptable union demands.

The report also notes:

It is only in exceptional circumstances that replacement workers are used for an inappropriate end.

That is what the report of the government indicated. We need to make sure there is not a ban on replacement workers. The legislation, given the history of the board, will lead to that. If it does, it will cause untold hardship and unfairness for workers.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, to amend the Canada Labour Code, part I.

In my presentation I will briefly outline Bill C-19, although that has been well done by members who spoke before. I want to speak a little about unions and their roles in Canada. Then I want to focus mainly on the impact of the legislation on the grain industry. I will focus most of my comments on the impact of the legislation on farmers and their families and especially on what is missing from the legislation that will have an incredibly negative impact on farmers and their ability to access markets and earn a living.

Other speakers before me have done a good job of outlining the bill. Some members have done an excellent job in pointing out some of the flaws in the bill. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill did an excellent job in making it clear that it is an important piece of legislation that should not be taken lightly and has to be reconsidered. She did an admirable job of pointing out some of the key flaws in the legislation.

I will start by talking a bit about unions. I received several letters on the bill, as did the member for Guelph—Wellington. One thing that concerned me in many of the letters was the negative comments of people against unions. Many said that unions should not be allowed anywhere in the grain industry. That is too bad.

I want to say very clearly that unions serve a very useful role. They have a purpose and they are necessary. If unions are not present in certain industries, some businesses would take advantage of labour. That is a concern. It is unfortunate a few unions that have not acted in a responsible way have turned the feelings of people against them. That is an important concern.

To help improve the unions, their effectiveness and their acceptance, certain things must happen. We need better balance between labour and management, which is something the bill does not offer. It also does not offer the protection needed for innocent third parties.

The bill deals to some extent with grain at the ports and the moving of grain out of the ports. It affects farmers in a small way, in a positive way, but it does very little to protect farmers, people in the forestry industry and people in the mining industry. It does not protect any of the people affected in a negative way as third parties. These are the people who have no say in the unions or in management. Yet their livelihoods are affected to a great degree as a result of work stoppages.

We need better protection for innocent third parties. A little later I will focus on one particular group, grain farmers who are innocent third parties in any dispute which stops the movement of grain from the local elevator to being loaded on a boat in harbour.

I would like to talk about farmers and how they are affected by work stoppages. We have debated several times since we came to the House legislation concerning labour and management disputes. Since 1956 we have had nine major disruptions in the grain industry. It began in 1956 and went right through to 1972, 1974, 1975, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and 1994. There have been over a dozen other labour-management disputes involving grain handling and transportation which have ended up in back to work legislation.

In the 1998 stoppage 30% of the country's grain exports were stopped dead. How many grain handlers in the union were involved to stop 30% of the export of grain? There were 69 grain handlers involved who were unhappy with their working conditions and stopped the export of 30% of the grain. This affected in a very personal way the lives of grain farmers who were unable to move their grain to market. I believe that demonstrates the seriousness of the situation, the seriousness of the legislation, and the seriousness of the flaws in the bill which will do very little to change things.

Growing up on a grain farm, I remember going to school during times of work stoppage and speaking with friends. My friends at school, who also grew up on farms, were mostly quite poor. That was the situation then, although people did not complain about it. We certainly had the necessities of life. My neighbours and friends during the times of work stoppages felt the negative impact in a way that we could see and hear in our discussions. They were unable to get the new footwear or the new clothes they needed. Their parents, in many cases, were struggling to put food on the table.

These work stoppages are connected with reality. They have an impact on people's lives. This legislation does not do what has to be done to stop the impact which these work stoppages have on farmers and others who are captive to the labour-management relationship.

Section 87.7 of the bill will make a little difference. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour referred to a letter she had received from a farmer with respect to this section of the bill. This section will ensure that the grain that gets to port is loaded on to a ship. That is not entirely true because more and more of our crops are moving through bulk handling facilities where that would not be the case. When using the bulk handling facilities there is no requirement to load the grain on to a ship.

Furthermore, the definition of grain that is used in the legislation is the same as that used in the Canada Grain Act.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville referred to the fact that it will not have any impact at all on many farm commodities.

Farmers are trying to diversify. Government has encouraged farmers to diversify. They can no longer depend on wheat alone. The farmers have done a good job in doing that. They have started to produce all kinds of alternative crops. It used to be that wheat, barley and oats were the main crops on the prairies, as well as some rye and some flax. Now canola rivals wheat in terms of the value of the crop being sold. There are many other crops such as peas, lentils and alfalfa. The member referred to alfalfa being cubed and sent mostly to Asian countries, but alfalfa is not covered at all in this legislation because under the Canada Grain Act it is not a grain.

Farmers have diversified. They have done what they thought they should do. Their reward with this legislation is that the new diversified crops which they are producing to earn a reasonable livelihood most years will sit wherever they are in the system and will not be moved. They will be denied the income from these commodities until an agreement is reached between labour and management. It will take a long time to fix up the system once it has been thrown out of whack by a work stoppage.

These people are being punished for the work they have done and the changes they have made to try to better provide for their families and to make their businesses more viable.

I refer to the letter the parliamentary secretary received from a western farmer who supports this bill. She quoted from the letter to show that we should be supporting the bill. However, part of the quote was really not all that supportive. The farmer said this is a good first step. To me that would indicate there is an awful lot more which needs to be done. This is the best she can do to show support for the bill.

When I am in government I will not be satisfied with simply providing a good first step. We have to go further.

This is what the Reform Party has been proposing over the last four years. We dealt with the first back to work legislation in 1994. I think it was my second speech in the House of Commons. We had only been down here a couple of weeks. We talked about ending work stoppages in the grain handling system right from one end of the system to the other, not just ensuring that grain that gets to port gets loaded on the ships, which is all this legislation will do.

What we proposed is using final offer arbitration to end work stoppages. We have talked about this on several occasions in this House and I believe it is a process which must be put in place to end stoppages such as the frequent stoppages we have seen in the grain handling system.

In particular, this type of collective bargaining should be used when there is a third party which is completely captive to labour and management. In this case there are thousands and thousands of grain farmers across the country who are captive to union and management, yet they have no say at all in the negotiations. They have no place at the negotiation table.

The type of situation we are talking about is for grain movement but also for movement of coal, potash, forestry products, many resource areas in particular where they are captive and are affected very directly, not in some indirect way. Their livelihoods, their incomes depend on these products moving to ports.

Yet in this legislation government says for grain, as defined by the Canada Grain Act, it will make sure it keeps moving as long as it gets to port. Then the member for Guelph—Wellington has the nerve to stand up and say they have done a great job and refers to the farmer who wrote the letter saying it is a first step. That is completely unacceptable and I think the member should expect more. It is from her government.

Again, Reform not only critiques legislation, points out areas that we think are not right and that could be improved, we also present alternatives.

I want to talk about the Reform alternative in dealing with commodities where the producers are captive shippers and yet have no place at all at the bargaining table. What we propose is the use of final offer selection arbitration.

I am going to work through the process. The purpose of a strike is to force a settlement. That is the reason that union members choose to strike from time to time, to force a solution. Final offer arbitration puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement, to arrive at a solution. It allows the collective bargaining process to take place right through to solution. It can be used equally by labour and management. It does not favour one over the other and it can provide a permanent solution and it is a just and effective dispute settlement mechanism.

It is important to note that this final offer selection arbitration, in spite of the way it is presented so often by members from some parties, does not favour one side over the other. It is not something there for business to use against labour, not at all. It is as useful for one side as the other.

Here is how it works. If and only if the union and an employer cannot reach an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the union and employer would provide the minister with the name of a person or persons they jointly recommend as an arbiter or an arbitration panel. Then the union and the employer would be required to submit to the arbitrator or the panel, depending on what they choose, a list of matters they have agreed on.

There is no need for more negotiation on these matters. They have reached a settlement. In many cases before a situation comes to strike many of the issues have been settled, so those are taken out of the process at this point.

They also submit a list of matters still under dispute, and those are the issues which must be presented to the arbitrator or to the panel. For these disputed issues, each party would be required to submit a final offer for settlement. The arbitrator or panel selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by business, by the employer. In this way any work stoppage is completely headed off.

That sounds like a more complete solution to the problem than saying if we get the grain to the coast and loaded on the ships, the system can be backed up in every other aspect. It may take months to really sort the situation out and it usually does. There could be sales lost, which there always are, to the point that Canada now is looked on as an unreliable supplier of grains and other commodities affected often by labour disruptions.

I think that does sound like a far more reasonable solution to the problem. It is the solution that we have been encouraging now for four years, a solution which I do not believe was seriously considered by this government, and I think it should be.

I close by saying that farmers and other captive shippers deserve a mechanism which will ensure them as captive shippers, as people who really have no place at the table and yet their livelihoods are affected so directly, that they have something better than this legislation. They deserve a system of final offer selection arbitration and that is what Reform will give them when we have a chance, if this government does not see the light before then and give it to them.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a moment to respond to the member. He quoted me a number of times on one particular letter I read. I could read to him a hundred letters.

I attended hearings with the Minister of Labour in Vancouver. I heard directly from farmers. Some of them had tears in their eyes saying to me please pass this legislation, it is important legislation for them.

It is hard for me to understand the member when he says he is for the people, that he wants to protect them. These are the grassroots people, the farmers in his community. I am taken aback by how callously he throws one letter aside. I am puzzled by that. They are the very people he says he wants to protect.

I have an excerpt from another letter. This one is from a farmer in the hon. member's area: “Grain has been used by various groups as a political football in order to achieve their own ends. This revision shows recognition on the part of government of the importance of a consistent and reliable supply of grain to our international customers. I urge your support for the bill and in particular section 87.7”.

I can only say to this House these are the things farmers are telling me. When I am urged by farmers that this is an important point for them, I think we must respond. As the government we are trying to do that.

The hon. member did say that the other letter I referred to said it was an important first step. Sometimes we have to walk before we run. That is what we are trying to do, but we are trying to do it with balance and with care. We believe this is a good bill.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and questions and for reading from another letter.

I believe farmers would have tears in their eyes because their very livelihood is affected by these stoppages that happen again and again. That is exactly what I was talking about.

As I was growing up, these were my friends and neighbours. I was in no way throwing aside the comments made in the letter. I was saying she was interpreting them loosely when she said that person was saying this legislation solved all the problems. That is nonsense. It does not.

To the quote from the other letter which said what farmers want is to provide a reliable supply of grain to their customers, that is exactly what they want. That is what this legislation will in no way deliver. All it will do is ensure that if grain makes it to the coast it will get loaded on the ships. That is only a short part of travel for grain. It has to move right from the elevator system to the coast first. That is more often than not where there is a problem. What good will it do to have these changes to ensure the ships are loaded when in many cases the grain never gets to the coast because of a work stoppage of some type?

We want to put it right through the complete grain system. It should be in other areas where people have no place at the table and are affected directly. That is what we want to do and that is what we are calling for. The letters are important, but let us interpret them accurately.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Lakeland on his presentation.

We in the PC Party have a lot of concerns, but this part of the legislation has not been visited in 25 years. I believe we are very close, but I think with more consultation we can all come forward with good solutions.

I have two questions for the member. We have concerns about replacement workers, as does the hon. member, and about off site workers and certification not requiring the majority of votes of employees. As was mentioned last week in the presentation on their behalf and on behalf of the other parties in the opposition there were some problems in this regard.

I have a question on work stoppage at ports. We support the section that would prevent labour disputes, other than those between employees, stopping the flow of grain at the ports. Would the hon. member see this section going a little further and make it apply to elevators in western Canada and in Ontario? Potato farmers and the pulp and paper industry could be affected as well.

Another section in the bill, section 7 dealing with the power of the CIRB to determine seniority, affects pilots. The board has the power to determine the question of seniority. This is troublesome for airline pilots as seniority determines their progression and promotion in ways that are drastically different from others industries.

To give the board the power to change the practices that are used worldwide in the aviation industry could cause undue problems. I would like to know the member's comments on this section.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member. I did not get the last question. I certainly encourage him to repeat it later.

With regard to support for section 7 which would ensure that the grain that gets to the coast is loaded on ships, certainly we support it.

As the member indicated, we would like it to go an awful lot further. That is why we have been suggesting we should use final offer selection arbitration to ensure that there would be no work stoppages right from the local elevator, or whatever type of gathering facility, through to the loading of the boats and that the collective bargaining process goes through to completion.

That is what the process allows. That is important because we do not want to interfere with collective bargaining. We think that is extremely important.

Our final offer selection ensures that without stoppage there can be an agreement that makes sense. We know that each party will present a reasonable offer when they know the arbitrator or the panel will choose all of one or all of the other with no mixing and matching as happens in many forced settlements now.

It will be all of one or all of the other. Two very reasonable offers will be presented. Both will be very close. Whichever one is chosen, I think both parties will be relatively happy.

We certainly encourage that type of mechanism. It goes much further. It will not only deal with grain because I do not think it is fair. My heart is with grain farmers. I grew up in that type of setting. My neighbours and friends were and still are grain farmers. It has to go into other industries that are affected in a similar way. The legislation discriminates unfairly in that regard as well.