Debates of May 12th, 1998

Division No. 137

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 28 stands deferred.

We will now proceed to debate on Group No. 4, Motion No. 10.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-19, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 23 with the following:

(3) The Minister may take only one action referred to in this section with respect to any particular dispute involving a bargaining unit and, in the case of one of the actions referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) or (c), the Minister may take the action only with the consent of the parties.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to take part in the debate on Bill C-19 through this logical amendment, which is consistent with the objectives of the new Canada Labour Code.

It is an amendment that might be described as ancillary, but which takes on its full meaning in the context of a labour dispute when the minister is called upon to use his authority to step in and appoint someone to resolve the dispute.

As members probably know, there are three courses open to the minister: he may appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner, or a conciliation board. I will read an extract from this clause on page 23 of the bill:

(3) The Minister may only take one action referred to in this section with respect to any particular dispute involving a bargaining unit.

That would be to appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner, or a conciliation board.

What we are adding, and to a certain extent this strengthens the intent of the legislation, is that such a decision may be taken by the minister only with the consent of the parties. If a labour dispute were dragging on and tensions were mounting, it would be a bit ridiculous for the minister to decide to step in arbitrarily, on his own initiative, and impose action that is supposed to resolve the dispute.

What we are saying is that the minister should have the consent of the parties to appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner or a conciliation board, and that this should be done in a spirit of co-operation, without which such a decision on the part of the minister might well have the effect of worsening the situation, rather than resolving it.

It is only common sense that the government intervention provided for in the legislation should be desired by the parties. If it is not, it could have an effect opposite to that intended. If the parties are not forced to consent to one of the three mechanisms available to them and thus perhaps reflect on how the situation is developing, things may get worse.

The Bloc Quebecois is introducing this sensible amendment in the hope that the government and the other opposition parties will approve it, in order to improve the Canada Labour Code for the greater good of the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion would entirely remove the Minister of Labour's discretion to appoint conciliation assistance unless the parties were to consent to such an appointment. Presumably it would require the joint consent of both labour and management before the minister could make an appointment under the code.

Government prescribed conciliation services have had a long and distinguished history reaching back to the very beginning of this century when in 1900 the Conciliation Act established the Department of Labour and provided for conciliation of labour disputes. Over the years the system has been modified. Currently the minister has full authority to appoint not just one but two consecutive levels of conciliation and that without the agreement of the party.

The presenter of the motion does understand that conciliation works best when the parties are committed to the process. What he perhaps does not understand is that sometimes in labour disputes a party will want to have conciliation assistance but will not want to ask for it for fear that such a request will be taken as a sign of weakness. That is where leaving discretion to the minister to appoint can be of great value.

During the extensive consultation process leading up to the introduction of Bill C-19, representatives of labour and management organizations subject to part I of the code, while critical of lengthy delays in the current conciliation process found conciliation valuable and praised the services offered by the federal mediation and conciliation service.

The labour-management working group did not recommend that compulsory conciliation be abolished, only that the two stage process be replaced by a single stage which could take various forms. This consensus is reflected in a single stage, time limited conciliation process included in Bill C-19.

The Sims task force found that conciliation remains an important function and that the federal mediation and conciliation service is a resource that helps reduce industrial conflict in Canada. Over 90% of disputes referred to conciliation are resolved with the assistance of conciliation officers without resort to work stoppages. The task force—

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is not a quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. Reform Party members say they want to debate this bill and talk about the amendments and then the hon. member calls quorum and leaves the Chamber. He does not even stay to listen to the debate. It is really quite hypocritical.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary knows it is not proper to comment on the presence or absence of members in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Wetaskiwin is quite correct.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for pointing out that the member had left the Chamber when he called quorum.

The task force recommended that because of the nature of the federal jurisdiction and the prevalence of industries providing services to the public it is important that every effort be made and be seen to be made to find an avenue for settlement before the parties decide to resort to economic sanctions to further their bargaining objectives.

For this reason, the Minister of Labour requires the parties to take part in conciliation proceedings. Conciliation has proven successful in assisting the parties to arrive at settlements in the vast majority of cases and should remain an option for the Minister of Labour.

Elsewhere in the bill, of course, the conciliation process is being streamlined and modernized. I have already mentioned the two stages being compressed into one stage. The process is also being limited in duration unless the parties jointly agree to extend it. This should please the presenter of this motion.

Perhaps just as important is the new profile being given to the federal mediation and conciliation service. The service is well respected and the important role of the head of the FMCS in advising the Minister of Labour on dispute resolution will be formally recognized in the code.

Similarly, the service will gain statutory recognition for its work in fostering harmonious relations between labour and management. This will provide the platform from which to launch relationship building programs.

In all, Bill C-19 recognizes the value of conciliation and lays the foundation for its continuing development.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we again find ourselves, for I think the 40th time, looking at time allocation in the House. We believe this is a very important piece of legislation that should be debated. We have noted that in the past when the Liberals were in opposition they thought it was absolutely deplorable that the Tories would move time allocation as many times as they did. The Liberals wrote the book on time allocation.

I would like to refer members back to the beginning of the 36th Parliament. The first item on the Order Paper was Bill C-19. It languished on the Order Paper until sometime in November when it was given first reading. It remained on the Order Paper and just recently there was a big panic to put through the labour legislation which, I might add, was also an item of business in the 35th Parliament.

Suddenly there is a big panic to get this legislation passed, to the point where the government is only going to allow one further day of debate at report stage and one further day at third reading. I think this is an unprecedented abuse of the power of the government to lord it over the opposition. Our duty is to point out how we think we can improve this legislation and the government, I submit, is really hampering us in doing that.

To speak specifically to Group No. 4, the amendment put forth by my colleague from the Bloc indicates that the parties should agree on who the conciliator or the conciliation board should be at a point when the two parties cannot seem to agree on much of anything. This comes at a point when both labour and management have agreed to disagree basically on everything or negotiations would not have broken off.

I think that if the member's motion had read that both parties would submit names of conciliation officers that they would approve of and if each side happened to recommend a person whom each one agreed on then that would be fine. But to come up with a conciliator, an officer or a board, to make any sort of judgment on this is going to be extremely difficult.

If we are looking at people who are going to come in to assess the situation and render a decision, I think that input from the two groups would be a good idea. If they happen to agree on a person to arbitrate the case, that is fine.

I do not believe, though, that my colleague's amendment has a chance in the world of passing since at committee, on at least one occasion, members of the government made remarks that they certainly were not foolish enough to entertain or to pass any amendments put forth by the opposition. So I would caution my colleague that although his intentions are no doubt honourable and will, in his opinion, improve the legislation, he has about as much chance of having this amendment passed as the proverbial snowball in Hades.

I should not prejudge the hon. member, but I think he may have overlooked one of the decisions the minister can make here. He may appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation board or advise the parties of his intention to do neither. He may just say “No, I do not think it is appropriate for me to get involved at this time”, and the parties would therefore be forced into a situation where they would have to go back and negotiate and get down to brass tacks rather than just throw their hands up and turn it over to someone else.

There has been a lot said in the House about whether this party or that party supports the collective bargaining process. Certainly the Reform Party does support the right to organize peacefully, to strike and to negotiate through a union.

However, I think the legislation, as I have said before in the House, is patterned after a report by Mr. Andrew Sims, and he named the report “Seeking a Balance”. Certainly that is a noble goal for any labour legislation and indeed for most legislation, that it be balanced. Page after page of the report concerns the empowerment of the union organizers, the union bosses, and not necessarily the rank and file people who pay membership dues to the union, and certainly not the people who provide jobs for those union members.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we first saw the amendment with the idea of reviewing the role of the conciliation officer et cetera, we viewed it in a favourable light. Our caucus wrestled for quite some time as to whether we would support the amendment. At this time we are satisfied that the changes made to the original Bill C-19 will address some of the things we recognized as being problematic. Moving from a two stage process to a single stage process was a very positive step. Given the spirit and the history of how the amendments that form part of Bill C-19 were arrived at, we were very reluctant to upset that fine balance or compromise that went into the changes we see in Bill C-19.

I regret that our caucus will not be able to support Motion No. 10. We will be voting against it, but not for the same reasons we have been hearing from the official opposition. We are finding more and more that the tone of the official opposition's comments regarding this whole piece of legislation, no matter which group of motions we are talking to, has an underlying sinister quality to it. There is an anger and a bitterness surging forward in all Reformers' comments that reveals their true attitude toward the industrial relations climate in Canada. I do not think it has its basis in the same spirit of co-operation that was in the original Bill C-19. I am disappointed to that degree.

We saw some of the delay tactics that went on during committee stage and the filibustering that occurred during report stage. I wonder what prairie farmers think as they view these deliberate stalling tactics which hold back a very worthy piece of legislation. The agriculture industry in my province is looking forward to this legislation. We are coming up to another season when grain will be shipped through the west coast ports. The producers want the security that their products will be handled at those terminals no matter what kind of labour relations climate might exist at those terminals.

With its stalling tactics, at least until the closure motion of today, the Reform Party has jeopardized the possibility of moving this bill forward in a timely fashion, at least in time for the harvest season when grain shipping at west coast ports will be an issue again.

The tone of the rest of Reform's comments reminds me of another message I have heard for years. It is a poison that has been sliding across the Canada-U.S. border in recent years. That poison is called right to work legislation. This seems to be the songbook that Reformers are singing their hymns from. It is not original, but it seems they have glommed onto it as if it were a new idea. It is sort of like the way they have glommed onto final offer selection as if it is some brand new idea they have just come up with.

Everybody knows what right to work is about. The Fraser Institute has just written a book and sent a copy to all MPs in an effort to promote this idea as the way we should conduct ourselves in the 21st century within the labour relations climate. We have another book that shows the empirical evidence, the actual statistics, of what it is like to live in a right to work state. One of those states had lower than average incomes and the poverty level was higher. The right to work is really the right to work for less.

The Reform Party is using the debate on Bill C-19 as a platform from which to launch its ideas on right to work legislation. They were frustrated in Alberta. The Klein government looked at right to work legislation and found it was too radical and too conservative.

In fact, it was bordering on fascist in a lot of its attitudes and it actually dropped it. It did not want to use it, and to its credit. Now we are having people shopping it around Ottawa trying to get people interested from a federal point of view.

I think Canadians should be cautious about the spirit and the tone being used in these arguments. Read between the lines a little. What will really be seen is a warmed over version of right to work legislation trying to be foisted on the Canadian people through the back door, through debate on a very worthy piece of labour legislation, Bill C-19.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.

We now turn to the motions in Group No. 5.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 19 on page 27 with the following:

“87.2 Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing,

(2) a notice shall not be required to be given by the trade union to the employer indicating the date on which a strike will occur; and

(b) a notice shall not be required to be given by the employer to the trade union indicating the date on which a lockout will occur.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 27 with the following:

“seventy-two hours shall not be required to be given by the trade union or the employer if they wish to initiate a strike or lockout.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 38 on page 27 and lines 1 to 31 on page 28.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 38 on page 27 with the following:

“87.3 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a trade union may not declare or authorize a strike unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employees in the unit and received the approval of the majority of the employees who voted.

(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employers' organization may not declare or cause a lockout unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employers who are members of the organization and received the approval of the majority of the employers who voted.”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 28.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 31 on page 28.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 27 on page 28.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues listened carefully and, fortunately, there is a consensus on the amendments that must be made to the Canada Labour Code.

We are interested in how, based on the labour code's provisions, a vote allowing workers to go on strike or employers to initiate a lockout would be held. We object to the procedure, and we wonder where the government got this strange idea.

We feel the government is unduly trying to control, to say the least, the union in terms of how it operates and in terms of its relations with its own members. Indeed, the government is proposing a slew of means and mechanisms that have the effect of controlling the union a little too much, and this is why we are proposing these amendments.

Motion No. 11 reflects our opposition to the 72 hour notice that is required under the bill, and that is supposed to be given by the union in case of a strike or by the employer in case of a lockout.

Through this amendment, we are causing it to be withdrawn because we think there is no need for notice to be given to either party. The party that decides to hold a strike or lockout should decide on the most appropriate time to do so without necessarily being required à because this would become a requirement à to give notice to the other side that it plans to act on its decision.

Also, regarding Motion No. 12, where the 72 hour strike or lockout notice is not acted on, section 87.2(3) provides that a new notice must be given.

If only for reasons of mere logic and consistency, we object to either party having to give a new notice where the strike or lockout initially planned did not occur. That is what Motion No. 12, which we feel will be passed by this House, is all about.

Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 all concern the whole voting mechanism and the notices to be given. Once a vote has been held authorizing the union to initiate a strike, under the new Canada Labour Code as amended by Bill C-19, a strike must be initiated within 60 days of the vote.

We consider this to be an arbitrary, unnecessary deadline, which, as Canadians—which we will probably remain for a short time—would say, could cause serious organizational problems given how huge this country is.

From coast to coast, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, unions could run into serious logistical problems if they had to hold a strike within 60 days of the strike vote. Let us say, for example, that an agreement has almost been reached, and the union has decided not to strike within the 60 days provided under the law. If an agreement is not reached, another strike vote has to be held. Given the breadth of this country, we are not sure that the government is making a wise choice in imposing such a time frame.

We consider that no time period should be provided, that, once the parties have the right to strike or to lockout they may do so when they consider it appropriate, without being overly restricted, as is the case here, by a time frame of 60 days following a strike or lockout vote.

The last motions, namely Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 set out the terms of voting, the conduct of a vote and the procedure for having a vote declared invalid. We have little sympathy for this sort of government intervention in voting activities and in technicalities.

It amounts to inappropriate intrusion in the operations of the union. I think they are going after the unions. There is also provision for an individual to invalidate a vote if they are not happy with it. Labour relations are complex enough as it is, and I see no need for the government to intervene in such matters. If there is one body in this country that is not in a moral position to interfere in the business of others and tell them how to behave it is the Government of Canada.

In terms of elections—of direct concern to it—the government is in no position to give anybody lessons on how to hold a vote. We all know that returning officers in this fine country are appointed on a purely partisan basis.

In Quebec we can count on our fingers the number of federal ridings where the returning officers have qualifications other than that of having worked for the Liberal Party of Canada. They come up with such inventions as postal votes, proxy votes, which are an open invitation to all unscrupulous organizers tempted to manipulate vote outcomes. This has been done shamelessly in some Quebec ridings.

Considering how lax the federal government is with respect to the Canada Elections Act, it is in a very poor position to lecture Canada's unions on how to carry out a vote, how to declare a vote invalid and all the procedures related to that.

It might be a good thing for the Canadian Liberal government to use its own bill as a model for inserting a bit more discipline into the Canada Elections Act, in order to clean up the mess we have got into in Quebec. Such practices as going after the senior vote by pursuing them to hospital rooms, waking patients up—it has gone as far as that à going door to door not to influence the vote, as our democracy is meant to work, but to get people out to vote. So they are far indeed from being in a position to lecture others, as they are in Bill C-19.

It is most unimpressive to see this government indicating non-confidence in the way unions have always operated. The federal government is most certainly not the one who should be giving lessons to anyone in this area.

I trust that these words have cast some light on this matter.