Debates of May 7th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would ask hon. members to address each other through the Chair. From time to time people get really wound up in their debate and it tends to make it a little less tense if the debate is directed through the Chair.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Churchill River, the environment.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate at the report stage of Bill C-19. It seems that the debate, I guess because of the latitude allowed in this place, is deteriorating into some kind of debate over the different conceptions of democracy rather than perhaps the motions before us on this bill. I guess I will have to make my comments as well before I get into the technicalities of the bill.

Some of my career was spent in labour-union negotiations and collective bargaining. Quite clearly, in that process there is a very delicate balance between the rights of the union and the rights of management. It can be easily skewed one way or the other. In my view this bill certainly skews the advantage to the union side. I think that is a dangerous direction in which to go.

When members opposite stand and tell me, having been here five years, that I am not voting with my conscience or for my constituents—

[An hon. member]

No one said that.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Someone did say that. The member at the other end of the House said exactly that. I would ask him how he can judge what my conscience is or whether I am voting for my constituents.

On the other hand, a couple of days ago the member who sits opposite, the member who is running off at the mouth over there, during a very emotional vote in this House was crying her eyes out simply because her party and her leader had threatened her and coerced her into voting the party line. The evidence was pretty clear that she was not voting for her constituents, or with her conscience for that matter.

This bill has a lot of flaws and a lot of problems. The robbing of the democratic process is only one of them. There are many other issues about replacement workers and about taking one particular commodity out of the process, such as protecting the right to load grain in the port of Vancouver while not providing that same protection for other commodities and causing all kinds of problems in a strike situation.

This is a bad bill in many ways.

The proposed motions in Group No. 2 include two motions moved by my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin which would greatly improve the quality of the bill and go a long way in bringing back some democracy, some fairness and effectiveness to the bill.

Before I discuss the motions of my colleague from Wetaskiwin, I want to mention two motions that were moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Motion No. 6 proposes the removal of clause 6 from the legislation. My colleagues and I are opposed to the removal of that clause. Clause 6 allows the board to decide a matter without having to hold an oral hearing. I think this clause is important to the process of streamlining the CIRB's procedures.

The whole process of scheduling an oral hearing and adhering to the strict oral hearing procedures unnecessarily prolongs many board decisions. Many decisions can simply be made by the board without the need for oral hearings. Such oral hearings are lengthy and expensive and should be reserved only for the most important matters.

This clause increases the speed and efficiency with which minor cases are dealt by bypassing the oral hearing process.

Therefore I am opposed to Motion No. 6 which calls for the removal of clause 6. I am also opposed to Motion No. 8, also moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. This motion removes a phrase in clause 16, amending it to allow the board to revoke the appointment of an employer representative without having to satisfy itself that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity.

By removing this part of the clause the government would be removing the employer's right to fair representation. Typically, a group of employers would select one representative and if this representative is arbitrarily removed because as few as one person in the employer's group calls for it, the wishes of the other employers in the group are disregarded. Again, it is a sleight to the democratic process.

It is my position that there should be a vote by which the majority of members of the employer's group have the opportunity to decide what action is taken.

The selection of the clause requiring the board to be satisfied the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity protects the wishes of the majority. The removal of this part of the clause as proposed in this motion would only serve to weaken the employer's association. Therefore I think in good conscience I could not support this motion.

I certainly can and do support the two motions in this group proposed by my hon. colleague for Wetaskiwin.

Motion No. 7 calls for the inclusion of a clause requiring that the board hold a representational vote on union certification when 35% of the employees sign cards requesting union certification. Of course this is getting into the particular motion that has caused all the controversy this afternoon.

In its current form the Canada Labour Code states that the board may hold such a representational vote but does not bind the board to the vote. This means the board could choose to ignore the wishes of workers in one respect or another.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am calling quorum because there is not a single government member present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that my speech is not so exciting that everyone in the House would want to stay and listen.

Motion No. 7 calls for the inclusion of a clause requiring that the board hold a certified representational vote on union certification when 35% of the employees sign cards requesting union certification. In its current form the Canada Labour Code states the board may hold such a representational vote but does not bind it to it.

This means the board could choose to ignore the wishes of workers in one respect or another. Union certification may be forced on workers or denied to workers if such a democratic process is not in place. The proposed clause ensures that the wishes of the majority are heard and upheld.

The second motion in this group moved by the hon. member Wetaskiwin is Motion No. 30. This motion has my unwavering support and should have the support of every other member in this House.

Motion No. 30 calls for the removal of clause 46. Clause 46 allows the board to certify a trade union despite lack of evidence of majority support. This is the issue that has caused all the controversy this afternoon, the trampling of democracy and the lack of respect for the democratic rights of union workers.

This is unacceptable and it allows for the board to make assumptions about the wishes of the workers. This clause suggests that it is acceptable for the board to force union certification on workers if it believes that it was only unfair labour practices that prevented workers from voting in favour of union certification. This might be acceptable if there were a concrete way to determine unfair labour practices. The reality, however, as exemplified in the Wal-Mart case is that the board does not always know the minds of workers.

In the Wal-Mart case the board assumed that Wal-Mart was using intimidation tactics to bully workers into voting against trade certification. This was not the case and now the workers have launched a decertification drive.

This clause leaves it up to the CIRB to determine what constitutes unfair labour practices and in essence to presume to know the minds of the workers better than the workers themselves.

To go against the wishes of the workers and to override their democratic right to determine the majority opinion through a representative vote is absolutely unacceptable. Members from the other side of the House are saying this clause protects workers who are being intimidated by their employers. However, if this is the case, that employees are afraid to vote honestly by secret ballot, then there is something wrong with the voting process and not with the way this legislation operates to protect them.

I certainly cannot support this bill in its current form without other amendments being proposed.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I entered politics I was a trade unionist working for the Nova Scotia government, unlike some of my colleagues on this side of the House, with respect to trade unionism and workers.

Those years taught me everything I know about why employees need protection and why allowing workers to organize is an important part of our society. That is why I am happy to stand here today and speak in favour of Bill C-19 in its present form, a bill modernizing the Canadian Labour Code for the first time in more than 20 years. It says something for the timeliness of the House that it has been two decades to update this act.

Think of the changes to the workplace since 1978. Changes in technology have affected everyone. Changes in the global economy have made it easier for people and money to move from one corner of the world to another. The stability our parents' generation grew up with has evaporated. The days when you started a job when you finished school and kept that job until you retired are over. The heavy industries and natural resources that generated so much of the nation's wealth have been downsized or wiped out like the east coast fishery.

Today workers have to face the prospect of changing jobs several times, acquiring new skills as they go. People often move from coast to coast within the country and often from country to country. Coming from the maritimes, we are very well accustomed to the citizens of the maritime provinces constantly moving to other provinces to seek work.

For many people such as my colleagues in the official opposition these changes to the workplace are a universally good thing and offer an opportunity to escape from what they see as a restrictive web that developed to protect workers during the first seven decades of the century. They are free to erode the protections given to workers by saying they were specific regulations tied to specific industries and job sites.

We hear groups like the National Citizens Coalition, the Fraser Institute, the Business Council on National Issues all singing from the same song book of deregulation and decertification. To hear them talk we would think the right of an employer to fire their workers at will is a right protected by the charter.

This has been the problem of the last two decades, that businesses and workers have grown apart, that management increasingly sees workers and unions as obstacles to be overcome, speed bumps on the highway of economic progress. Unions and workers often with good reason look at their bosses and wonder why when profits are soaring and their friends and neighbours who work side by side with them for years are collecting welfare.

They see corporate salaries going up at rates thousands of times the increases being given to people on the shop floor and in the offices. They see governments responding to their bosses and the special interest groups that represent them, lowering taxes for the wealthy so they can make more and more money that will, in theory at least, trickle down the line. If anything has been trickling down from the bosses standing over the workers it certainly is not money. Real wages have been going down in Canada while the business sector thrives and job security is a thing of the past for most citizens.

There is an important distinction that many employers and members of the Reform Party are failing to grasp and that is at the core of why this bill needs the support of the House. It is a great life for someone with a specialized skill and lots of education to go from short term contract to short term contract, playing off employer against employer and getting the best deal for him or herself. It is a different story for someone who has a grade four education and has worked for 30 years in a fish plant or in the woods.

The brave new world of global capitalism is great for the first group, but for the second group it means hunger for their children and their families and death to their communities.

To me there are few things more obscene than government funded consultants turning up in towns and villages that were passed by by globalization and lecturing people on the need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

There are millions of people in this country who are never given the skills needed to compete in the world of high finance and high technology. That is a fact that no one can deny. Those people need even stronger protection today than they did in past years.

The moral issue for me at the heart of this debate is the need to protect the more vulnerable members of society from exploitation. It goes deeper than that, to the right of all people to work together in a way that will maximize the benefits for all involved.

The left in general and my party in particular have often been accused of being opposed to profits, opposed to the market, opposed to business. This is nonsense. While I know Reform members will take pleasure in attributing my party's support for the bill to our supposed dependence on trade unions, I am proud to stand in the House and say that the New Democratic Party is pro-business, pro-profit, totally in favour of more and more people earning more and more money. Contrary to what the members of the opposition might think, there is no conflict between that position and our support for organized labour.

This is what Bill C-19 is about, a reassertion of the moral obligation to include and empower workers in the business of making business work.

When Bill C-66 died on the order paper when parliament was dissolved just over a year ago, I thought the progressive changes we see resurrected before us today had been shuffled aside permanently.

The minister deserves credit for bringing these issues and the bill back to the House and I hope it will receive the support of all right thinking members. Specific aspects of the bill are worthy of special mention.

Carrying on from my previous comments concerning changes in the workplace, it is good to see that the issue of disseminating union information will no longer be restricted to onsite workers. With more people commuting with computers it is critical that solidarity among workers be maintained and that no one be discriminated against because of where they work.

The clarification surrounding strikes affecting grain shipments is a critical matter and all parties that contributed to the drafting of the legislation deserve credit for reaching a compromise that preserves the right to strike for all those involved yet preserves the tens of thousands of jobs connected to the industry and the vital flow of grain that feeds millions of people around the world.

The creation of the new and improved Canada Labour Relations Board is perhaps the biggest single change that will have a positive impact on the life of Canadians.

The board's ability to arbitrate in disputes over certification and strike votes means a faster and fairer process that will hopefully reduce the already low strike rate in Canada.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre made mention in his remarks on this bill that between 95% and 97% of all labour disputes are resolved without strikes, lockouts or work stoppages of any kind. That should put paid to the fearmongering that members of the official opposition have engaged in. They should be reminded that groups from all sectors of society have contributed to the legislation.

I would just like to ask the members of the Reform Party as an active trade unionist to please stop insulting the intelligence of workers across Canada by wanting to appear as though they are in true support of workers across this country. My experience over the last 10 months in this House has been that Reformers have clearly demonstrated that as trade unionists they are anti labour.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member from down the way as she gave her speech a few minutes ago. At the end of it she talked about how Reformers should take note, that we put ourselves forward as protectors of labour. She said that with a great deal of sarcasm so I am assuming she did not really mean it that way.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say to the member that I am not the member from down the way. I am the member for Bras d'Or.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Bras d'Or has made her point. The hon. member from the other end, Blackstrap.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point well taken, rest assured. I meant that it was to my far left.

One thing struck me as being odd about the member's remarks. About a year ago we were campaigning in the 1997 election. One of the big reasons the federal New Democrats and of course the provincial New Democrats are so much in love with labour is that they get most of their election funding from that area.

My wife is a school teacher. She belongs to the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation. Her union dues to a large degree go to the person who ran against me in the federal campaign as a New Democratic. I do not know whether or not she likes that but there is something wrong with this whole picture. That is a bit off topic and I would like to get back to the topic at hand which is of course Bill C-19.

In this parliament and in the last parliament, there was a great deal of talk about labour, about unions, about how they are constructed, about how they should negotiate, how agreements should be made, how strikes should or could or may not happen. I remember in greater detail as it related to the business of agriculture, something which I am personally involved in, along with a large number of others in my province of Saskatchewan.

We went through a series of strikes in those years. Railways were on strike at one point in time or another with different unions. I think there are something like 27 or 29 unions that a bushel of grain must go through from a farmer's gate until it gets loaded on to a ship on the west coast, at Thunder Bay or at Churchill.

From firsthand experience as a farmer, that is one of the most frustrating areas. A person works all year to grow grain and spends huge amounts of dollars and if he is lucky he may make a profit but it is seen at the end of the tunnel. Then there will be a union that will put the kibosh on that, or in some cases management will put the kibosh on that, because there will be a slowdown or stoppage in grain transportation.

What it really is doing is affecting innocent third parties far more than anything else. It is the innocent producer of the grain who suffers most. We have to come to a system in this country where we do not allow those types of things to happen.

I am all in favour of negotiation and consultation between unions and management. I know that without management, unions cannot exist.

As my colleague from Skeena mentioned a few minutes earlier, there certainly is a need for unions at least in some companies. We all have seen companies that have taken advantage of their employees. There definitely needs to be some control and unions are a very important part of that.

We are getting to the point where we are allowing groups—and I am not going to say special interest groups because they are not, they are unions—but we are getting to the point where we are allowing small segments of our workforce to tie up entire industries. A few minutes ago I mentioned the grain transportation system.

I know that a couple of years ago the Grain Services Union, which is the union for Sask wheat pool employees, voted to go on strike in September. September in Saskatchewan is a very important time of year. It is harvest time and we definitely need our elevator agents. It was very interesting that in this particular strike many of the employees refused to walk out. Many of the employees at the local elevator agents and in fact our local elevator agent Mr. Brent Hartman refused to go on strike. He crossed the picket lines and opened his elevator.

In a small town of 350 people such as I live in, to have a fellow stand up for the producers' rights even though he is a union member and a good union member, is admirable. I take my hat off to these people. It was very important and a very critical move by those people.

The other half of this bill that I see as a huge negative is the way the democratic process is being handled. It has been mentioned today how undemocratic things are not only in some areas of the labour process and the labour force but also in this House of Commons.

We profess in this country to have one of the greatest democracies in the world. Certainly I do not think anyone would argue that we have the best country in the world. There is no question about that. However I look across at some of the Liberal members who were heckling our members when democracy was discussed. The fact is I have been here now for almost five years, some might say too long, and we have all seen in the last five years a good number of occasions when members on the opposite side were whipped into line by their whip.

Obviously the latest occasion was the vote on hepatitis C which was held last Tuesday night. I walked out of the Chamber after that vote was held and I ran into a couple of the Liberal members. They had rather sheepish looks on their faces. We got to chatting. When I asked them what they thought, they said that they really had two options. They said that they could have voted in favour of their constituents and in favour of our motion but they felt that no one would talk to them the next morning at caucus. They said that they had to make that decision as to whom they were going to support first, their party or the people who elected them.

If it comes to that serious of an issue and members of parliament do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the people who elected them in the first place, they have no business being in this place.

The member for York South—Weston had the courage to stand up for the people who elected him. What happened to that member? Everyone knows he now sits right beside the curtain on the opposition side. He is history. Those members over there knew that. They knew that if they voted for the Reform motion on hepatitis C there would most likely be serious retribution and they could end up sitting on the opposite side of the House, out of government.

What is more important? Why are we here as members of parliament? If we are not here to represent the people that elected us first, then that is a dishonest way to become and remain a member of parliament. It is fraudulent to forget who elected us.

We talked a lot about that in the campaign. In fact I was thinking about that yesterday. A year ago we were involved in a federal election campaign. One of the issues in that campaign was democracy and the way MPs should represent their constituents. Every member of parliament I will admit has a different way of representing his or her constituents and well that should be.

The bottom line is that the people who elect us pay us. We owe that first debt of duty to them, not to the whip or the party leader. Until that changes, the things we see in this bill are going to continue to happen. We are not allowing for the regular Joe Public to have his or her input into this country's business. That very critical point of argument has to be dealt with.

I will not support the bill the way it stands. That is a given. If members from all parties, including the New Democrat members who seem to think it is a pretty good piece of legislation, could take a step from their own political parties, they could have a good look at the bill and see what it really means to democracy and the average worker. They may find that the bill has some serious shortcomings.

I call on all members of parliament to take that step back from party lines just for a second if they could. They could think not about what their whip or party leader wants them to do, but about what their constituents may want them to do. Ultimately, when we are done with this business, our constituents are the people we have to live with when we go home.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I remind the House that we are debating Group No. 2 motions. It would not hurt if every once in a while members who are speaking would alight somewhere near the motions being discussed.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the Group No. 2 motions in Bill C-19. We have all been speaking quite eloquently on Group No. 2 today.

It is instructive to look at history to see what this bill will do for the Canadian economy. Everybody in this House wants to improve the health and welfare of Canadians. Heaven knows that we have the worst structural unemployment problem of any OECD nation in the world. The number is over 9%. It is not a cyclical problem. It is a structural problem. Bill C-19 will only make that structural problem worse.

It is instructive to look at two countries that had to labour under labour laws which would be supported by Bill C-19, Britain and New Zealand. As my friends from the Liberal Party well know, back in the 1970s and the 1980s, New Zealand and Great Britain were labouring under rules and regulations that supported the unions and which caused a dramatic negative impact on unemployment. Their labour laws sought to crush their economies through various methods which I will get into later.

Bill C-19 will ban replacement workers. As the Sims report very clearly said, banning replacement workers will have a significant negative impact on our economy. It will increase the number of part time workers which will cause a decrease in investment, an increase in union premiums and a decrease in employment, that is, an increase in unemployment.

It causes a decrease in the reliance of permanent workers. Who would like to be in the situation of working part time job to part time job having to continually seek for a job? It causes an enormous amount of personal and economic uncertainty for Canadians. That is happening more. Instead of alleviating the problem, Bill C-19 will make that problem worse.

The proposed legislation would also provide for union reps to have the names and addresses of all offsite workers.

That is an infringement on and a violation of people's individual rights and freedoms. It will also cause an increase in union premiums and a decrease in investment. What has been clearly found, when we look at the impact of unionization on economic performance, is that there is no change or a decrease in productivity within an economy with an increasing in the strength of union rules and regulations.

Unions have done a tremendous job historically in providing job security, fair wages and clean and fair environments. But in the last few decades they have taken on an entirely different tone and tenure. Some unions are engaging in behaviours that produce and increase their political leadership rather than behaving in a way that is beneficial to their members. It is the members who pay the price.

If union wages are increased, if members are forced against their will to join a union, labour costs are increased. If labour costs are increased what happens? The employer is forced to increase the price it charges for goods and services. This causes a decrease in the competitiveness of that business. That causes a decrease in employment in that business. Unless wage increases are matched with increased productivity a firm becomes less competitive domestically and internationally.

This kind of bill will to decrease the competitiveness of our industry and will strengthen the structural unemployment problems we have. This is very serious.

There are a number of things we can do. It is constructive to look at what the United States has recently done. In many states right to work legislation has been introduced. For those states that have adopted right to work legislation, 75% of the new investment in the United States has gone to those states.

Is the individual worker better off with or without right to work legislation? The last thing we would want to do is in any way, shape or form harm the individual worker's ability to gain safe and secure employment. Facts prove that right to work legislation increases the amount of money that workers have in their pockets by almost $2,300 per person.

If we look at the historical evidence from Great Britain and New Zealand we see very clearly that the increasing strength of labour laws and regulations which strengthens unions within a country actually crushes the economy, increases unemployment and impedes the ability of workers to seek what people see as a necessary part of living, gainful, successful, enjoyable and safe employment. That is what Bill C-19 and Group 2 motions will do, except for the ones the Reform Party has introduced. They will improve Bill C-19.

There are other things we can do that are constructive. I will quote some from some labour laws and regulations that have actually strengthened and improved workers' positions. How can we protect individual workers rights? One, make it unfair to dismiss an employee for non-membership in all circumstances.

Two, give union members the right not to be disciplined by their union for not supporting industrial action. Three, make it unlawful to organize or threaten industrial action to establish or maintain a closed shop.

Four, make it unlawful to refuse employment on grounds related to trade union membership. Job advertisements cannot specify union membership.

Five, make unions responsible for unofficial strikes. Unofficial strikers can be dismissed. There is no immunity for industrial action to support a dismissed striker.

We could also do the following that was in the trade union employment act in Great Britain. We could establish a commissioner for the protection against unlawful industrial action. We could also require unions to provide all members with annual statements of financial affairs, including pay and benefits of union leaders. Hundreds of millions of dollars go into union coffers every year. Does anybody know where that money goes? Do the workers know where that money goes? No.

They pay out a lot of money and many union workers tell me they wish we could find out where that money goes. They pay a lot of money out of their pockets but do not know where it goes. They are concerned that money goes into the pockets of the leadership of the unions or for the leadership of the union's benefit and not for the people.

An audit of these moneys making the ultimate outcome of the union dues transparent to all members is a useful thing for the membership and would strengthen and safeguard those union leaders who are honourable and trying to do the best for their workers.

We could also give individuals the right to join the union of their choice. Right now they do not have that choice at all. We could also require employers to seek an individual written consent to the checkoff of trade union subscriptions from pay every three years.

All these things could strengthen labour laws, strengthen the individual's position rather than strengthening the position of the union leadership.

No one in this House, in particular members of the Reform Party, wants to see in any way, shape or form individual rights compromised. That is why our members are working very hard to quash this bill or at the very least change it so that individual worker rights are put ahead of the rights of union leaderships. How can anybody argue with that? I ask members to join us in producing a bill that will strengthen the position of the workers and not the leaders.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak on the amendments to this bill and so I think it is a choice opportunity.

Labour laws in Canada are trying to strike a balance between the rights of management and the rights of workers. That balance is a balance that I think we all look for and all strive for. I am not sure that the correct balance has been struck in this bill and I would like to bring forth a few examples as to how I think it could be improved.

We are speaking on the second group of amendments. The whole idea of balance is so that the workers will have a safe, secure environment, which is very important. I had lots to do in my previous life with employment problems and non-safe working conditions. I think the unions had a good part to play in making workplaces safer. I endorse the work unions have done in that area.

Looking back through history I have found evidence where workers were not paid properly. I am convinced that the unions have had an excellent record in terms of getting fair wages for their individual workers.

As long as the balance is there and not tipped in favour of the unions, I think we have the best of both worlds in Canada. I look to other countries and their experiences and share some of the comments of the member from Juan de Fuca who talked about Britain and New Zealand as classical examples where the balance was tipped.

It is interesting to me that when the balance became so tipped Britain had the lead in national health care. It had a system that was completely and totally socialized. In Britain, as these things often work, the health care system deteriorated. Most people know now that Britain has both a private and a public system. Which groups were the first ones to speak out loudly for the private system when the public system failed them? It was the unions. They sought private health care for their workers instead of the public system where the waiting time was long.

The unions got together and thought the national health system was the answer for all the problems and then ended up pushing for a private system, an experience that is quite interesting and quite unique. I digress a little, however, from the actual topic here.

This grouping of amendments deals with the democratic process when it relates to union activity, a democratic process where it does not look fair to me for 35% of the workers to vote for a union and for the labour board to decide that the union should well be certified. It reminds me of a dictatorial process. We saw such a process not so long ago in this House.

I wonder if members opposite would reflect on the forced vote on hepatitis C a few days ago. It generated media interest that was intense. If the Prime Minister had not done that maybe the story would not have been so vigorous.

I saw what I consider to be the harshest cartoon I have ever seen in a political arena relating to this. It showed on one side a victim of hepatitis and asked how do you recognize a victim of hepatitis C. It also detailed the sad things these victims have, yellow skin, jaundice, swollen liver and fatigue. On the other side of the panel it asked how do you recognize a Liberal backbencher. It drew a person in a business suit and labelled them. The labels were devastating, two faced, no heart, spineless, gutless.

They were placed in the position of being called all those things. Individual members I had talked to and knew did not want to vote that way sincerely and humbly were forced to vote against their conscience. I consider that action to have—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member knows it is improper to reflect on a vote in the House. I invite him to move on in his comments and deal with the matter before the House today. I know the hon. member would want to comply with that rule.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that timely reminder.

The issue is democracy, voting for constituent wishes and, in terms of the union here, looking at how union members could be so far off base as to be certified when there are only 35% voting for a union.

It is a sad commentary that this legislation is coming from a government that has not acted in a democratic way.

I was asked a piercing question by a journalist today as to how this issue of democracy in the House could have got so far away from where the government should be, a government of compassion, a government of kindness and a government of sincerity. I could not answer.

There were four or five opportunities for the government to change its mind on the non-democratic position it took. I could list the opportunities. The latest one is where the provinces, which had a stand that was supposedly unified, broke ranks. What a perfect opportunity for the Prime Minister to simply say they had made a mistake, that they would listen now reflecting on that error and go back to the drawing board.

Instead the government dug in its heels and became aggressive and belligerent on behalf of a position it took, a position I am convinced most Canadians know is wrong.

How does the government get out of a position when it has been non-democratic? It is really quite tough. How does an individual go back to their constituents and say “when we talked before the vote I promised you that I would not vote for this package and I changed my mind”? I guess the cartoon that says spineless really says a lot.

There are members opposite who, I am absolutely convinced when they go to public events over the next few months and answer the questions of their constituents, will have trouble explaining to them why they went that route. I feel sorry for them. I feel in my heart that they did not want to do that. I guess they can find some excuse to say to an individual with hepatitis C, but frankly it is difficult for me to explain. I could not explain it to the journalist. Maybe they could.

Mr. Speaker, I see you getting ready with Beauchesne's. I presume that means I should be moving into another area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am pleased that the hon. member for Macleod brought it to my attention, but most definitely this does not have anything to do with the amendments.

If members of the Reform Party are serious about trying to make some amendments, would they please talk about them? We have been here all day and there has been very little talk on the amendments. Obviously this is not a serious—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have corrected the hon. member for Macleod once. In case he wanted to know the reference. I refer the hon. member to citation 479 of Beauchesne's, 6th edition.

A Member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the House, unless intending to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.

The hon. member is not in a position to move such a motion today since we are on debate on another bill. There are motions already before the House concerning another bill and a motion to rescind the motion he was referring to earlier would be out of order.

In his remarks today I know he was working to draw them into Bill C-19, which is after all the subject of our discussion. I had not noticed that he had strayed further than some other members had strayed from the topic in the course of the day.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I defer to your wisdom and judgment on these matters, as I recognize your profound experience in the rules and practices and regulations of the House. It would be very unwise of me to try to argue such points.

I will go back to the point that I was trying to make before, the undemocratic nature of Bill C-19. Members opposite have some difficulty understanding this principle. I was trying to point out when one has not been democratic in one's own affairs it is difficult to be democratic in the affairs of others.

It is very important to have balance in labour laws. This sort of balance is what Reformers seek. We would like management and workers to have the proper balance. We think it can be improved. We have made amendments to do so. I would ask my colleagues to consider the amendments we have put forward with care and with sincerity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague from Maclead.

I recognize that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour has sat here all day. It is a shame that she has not been accompanied by too many of her government colleagues in this debate while listening to the concerns of the opposition parties to government legislation.

Unless I am mistaken, the whole purpose of report stage is for the government to look at amendments placed on the floor by opposition members to try to make a better piece of legislation than what the government has provided.

Our job in this place is to hold the government accountable and to make sure the legislation that the government passes on behalf of the Canadian public is the best it can possibly be. It is sometimes very disarming for us when debating to an empty House to try to convince an empty House that the legislation is inadequate, needs to be corrected and needs changes. Today is just another example of what we put up with day after day in trying to hold the government accountable for bad legislation and to offer some innovative changes.

We have a genuine concern with Bill C-19 under Group No. 2. Let there be no mistake that I will be speaking about the lack of vision the government has shown in Bill C-19.

I represent a province which has had labour legislation that has been very damaging to the economic well-being of our province and of employment. We have a problem in our province with labour legislation. We do not want to see as representatives of that province those problems compounded by labour legislation brought in by the Liberal government.

We have a concern with the democracy that is not being supported in the legislation. We are talking about legislation that would allow a union to come in and organize in a place of work and to convince some people, sometimes the ones with a lot of influence, to consider unionizing. These people of influence, although they may be a minority, could end up placing that place of work in a situation where somebody declares that it will be a unionized shop even though the majority of workers, for very good reasons perhaps, feel that they are not ready to be unionized and do not want to be unionized.

That just rubs the wrong way any Canadian who believes in democracy, who believes that people have a right to make decisions for the best of the majority in the situation. That means workers and that a majority of the workforce in a particular work environment should feel that a union is required to speak on their behalf.

In many instances people find themselves in a union when they do not really want to be. They are paying union dues when they do not see any benefit from it. We even have young people who are union members. They get accreditation, their journeyman certificates, but because of union salaries they find themselves too expensive and the union shops do not hire them.

I have talked with several young people who have found themselves unemployed for years on end because they cannot work outside a union shop. The employers are being asked to pay them journeyman wages which they cannot afford to pay. The young people find themselves in a conundrum: they cannot work because the union will not allow them to work and have no options open to them.

Many people are looking at unions in a different light. A majority of workers should be required before a workplace decides to belong to a union. I do not think we should be taking that right away from the average employer.

Another concern I have with Group No. 2 is the motion the Bloc has put forth. I have difficulty with it. I like some of the concepts but not all of them. This is an opportunity in the House of Commons for people to debate the motions in amendment raised by other parties.

I do not like the idea that we have a government which feels that this is a waste of time and that we should not have the right to be raising points on other people's motions that we feel may be going in the right direction but do not quite make it.

Bloc Motion No. 8 talks about the automatic removal of an employee representative upon the receipt of an application. This is when employers are being blended. I have a problem with the way it is being dealt with. I like the concept that there needs to be some negotiation, but who should decide which side is to have the employer or employee representatives when there are amalgamations or mergers. There may have to be a concession that all of them are represented or a means of figuring that one out.

This is the vehicle. This is the process. In parliamentary debate we debate these issues. I resent that we have a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour who is trying to say that we do not have the right or that we are wasting time debating these issues.

In Motion No. 7 we indicate that the wording is not quite right. One word can make all the difference in the world. “May” rather than “shall” can make all the difference in the world to workers who are looking for somebody to represent them.

I do not think it is wrong for us to move a motion to say to government that a word is not quite right, that it can be interpreted in such a way that it is not representing the best interest of the employee, and that we feel it should use another word in the legislation instead of the word it has chosen to use.

In the motion we are saying that the government is offering the labour board a choice that it may or may not call for a representative vote of the workers. That should be automatic; that vote should be required. It should not be conditional and not something the board can choose to use or not to use.

It may be naive of me after five years in this place but I would like to think the government is open to suggestions, that the government is open to having motions brought forward and debated pointing out the usage of words that may make a difference in the interpretation by the board being created by a court if it comes to a court situation.

We would like to think that the government is open to those kinds of suggestions. However my experience tells me otherwise. My experience tells me, no matter what the issue, that once the government has made up its mind it is not willing to accept that maybe it has made a mistake.

It does not matter whether it is in the drafting of a bill or in the hepatitis C debate. We very seldom see a government that says that maybe it made a mistake, maybe it could do better, maybe it should listen to the opposition side, maybe it will make a change because of something suggested that offers improvement.

Rather than listening to the cat-calling, the hissing and the screaming from the other side, maybe they should be listening to the logical and well presented arguments from the opposition side to improve government legislation so that Canadians can receive the best possible legislation from the House.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 5.30 p.m. rather than starting another speaker at one minute to.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the suggestion. Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is agreement and by serendipitous circumstance it is also 5.30 p.m.

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.