House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed that all remaining questions stand?

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There are 31 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 5.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 6 to 8 and Motion No. 30.

Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 9 and 28.

Group No. 4: Motion No. 10.

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 11 to 17.

Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.

Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 19, 25 to 27 and 29.

Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 21 and 24.

Group No. 9: Motion No. 31.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 5 to the House.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 2 with the following:

“Minister, on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development, to hold office during good”

(b) by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:

“(1.1) Before making a recommendation to the Minister under subsection (1), the committee referred to in that subsection shall hold public hearings to hear the representations of any person seeking nomination as a candidate for the offices of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or wishing to make representations with respect to any candidate under consideration by the committee.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:

“(1.1) The terms referred to in subsection (1) shall not be renewed.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 40 on page 2 and lines 1 to 14 on page 3 with the following:

“(2) Subject to subsection (3), the members of the Board other than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development, to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Minister at any time for cause.

(2.1) Before the standing committee referred to in subsection (2) makes recommendations to the Minister for the purposes specified in that subsection, the committee shall hold at least one hearing at which it shall invite the organizations representative of employees or employers to submit names of candidates for the positions referred to in that subsection.

(3) The members of the Board appointed pursuant to paragraph 9(2)(e) are to be appointed by the Minister, on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development, to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Minister at any time for cause.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 20 on page 5 with the following:

“12.03 (1) If the Chairperson of the Board is absent or unable to act, a Vice-Chairperson designated by the Minister acts as Chairperson for the time being, and a Vice-Chairperson so designated has and may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions of the Chairperson.

(2) If the office of Chairperson is vacant, a person chosen by a vote of a majority of the members of the Board present when the vote is taken shall act as Chairperson.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 7 with the following:

“tions, if any, to the Minister and to the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the amendments that we are proposing to improve Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

First of all, and this is unfortunate, we will not be able to put forward all the amendments that we wanted to present, for reasons of procedure, given the nature of this bill, compared to that of last year's proposed legislation, which also sought to amend the Canada Labour Code, but which was never passed, seemingly for technical reasons in the Senate, and because a federal election was called.

There are amendments which we really wanted to propose again this year, but we were unable to do so for reasons of procedure, as I mentioned earlier. These amendments sought to have flour mills and other undertakings for the milling of grain come under provincial legislation, including the Quebec labour code, as opposed to being covered by the Canada Labour Code, as is currently the case. We cannot go any further for procedural reasons, as I said.

As for federal public servants, whether they are represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada or the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and also RCMP personnel, we have been defending these groups since we came to Ottawa, so that they too can be covered by the Canada Labour Code, as opposed to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but unfortunately, again for reasons of procedure, we cannot table the appropriate amendments.

I now come to our amendments in Group No. 1, which address two issues: first, there is the role of committees, in particular the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, to which the Department of Labour reports and which deals with the Canada Labour Code and, second, vacancies, as well as the renewal of the terms of members of the Labour Relations Board, recently renamed the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

As for the committee, it is known that, historically, the Bloc Quebecois has defended in the House the fact that House committees are called upon to play a greater role in overall operations. Right now, one criticism is that committees are required to meet without really having many powers, because the executive feels free to do all sorts of things without first seeking the opinion of members, the House and committees.

We therefore suggest, for instance, that the appointment of members to the Canada Industrial Relations Board be by recommendation and that the committee be permitted to hold hearings, that the board submit an annual report, not just to the minister, but also to the committee, and that, in the case of appointments, the committee be involved in the entire process, that it perhaps even be allowed to call candidates to appear before it and to seek the opinion of the public with respect to the list of potential members.

These amendments are entirely consistent with the Bloc Quebecois' earlier positions calling for greater involvement by elected representatives in all aspects of operations in the interests of democracy.

I will come back to this often. The dramatic gesture by our colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, says a great deal not just about how things are done, but about what things are done. It is the whole operation of what we represent in democratic terms that is open to discussion and highly so, in my opinion. We in the Bloc Quebecois think that this is the sort of measure that will greatly strengthen the role of elected officials and democracy.

More specifically, everything that concerns the committee is in Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5.

Motion No. 2 serves to ensure that the members of the Industrial Relations Board—the chairperson and the vice-chairpersons—cannot have their terms renewed after three or five years, as the case may be, to provide for an automatic turnover to provide the board with new blood. We consider that, by setting a time limit, the board will be revitalized, perhaps have new approaches, new influence networks and look differently at things.

Finally, Motion No. 4 pertains to vacancies. The law as it stands provides that the chairperson is to be replaced by the vice-chairperson in the event he is absent or ill. In the event the chairperson is absent or ill, or the position vacant, the bill provides that the minister will choose the person to replace the chairperson.

We think a vacancy, and not a temporary absence, in the position of chairperson should be filled by the individual chosen by a majority vote of the members of the board present. We think that, when people know each other, it would perhaps be more democratic and more fair to let those who know the field appoint a new chairperson in the case of a vacancy.

We know how gifted this government is at finding friends when it counts. We think this would be a fine time to call a halt to this sort of attitude, which we have seen all too often, and ensure that people close to events are invited to react and take action accordingly, designating a new chairperson to fill the vacant position.

That is the end of my remarks on the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Guelph—Wellington Ontario

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, before addressing the motions in Group No. 1, I would like to say a few words about the purpose of Bill C-19 and about the consultation process preceding its introduction.

Bill C-19 is the result of extensive consultations with representatives of labour and management and other interested parties in the context of a review of Part I of the Canada Labour Code which began in 1994. The review included a study by an independent task force of industrial relations experts chaired by Mr. Andrew Sims.

Following the release of the task force report entitled “Seeking a Balance” in February 1996, the Minister of Labour held cross-country consultations. He continues to do that. He has consulted and consulted.

The contents of Bill C-19 are essentially the same as its predecessor, the former Bill C-66, which was awaiting third reading in the Senate when the 35th Parliament was dissolved. However, in response to the concerns raised during the study of the former bill and during further ministerial consultations with interested parties last summer and fall, a number of drafting changes were made, again because of consultations and the fact that the Minister of Labour has listened.

The result is a bill which, while not meeting all the preferences of all parties, is a fair and balanced package of amendments arrived at through extensive consultations, reflecting considerable consensus between labour and management subject to Part I of the code.

I draw to the attention of the House that any time labour or management are too happy with the bill, then it is lopsided. Because of the feeling and the information that we have been able to get through the consultations we know we have a balanced package here which is very important.

The bill includes important measures designed to improve the administration and conduct of collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector. It reflects labour and management support for a legislative framework which allows them to develop their own solutions to industrial relations problems without the need for government intervention or imposed third party solutions. I should think that we would all want to strive for that particular component.

There is a clear relationship between a positive labour relations environment and a productive viable economy. A stable positive labour relations climate is essential if Canada is to meet the competitive challenges of the new global economy.

Collective bargaining legislation should encourage and facilitate co-operative labour-management relationships and the adoption of innovative workplace practices. The government believes that Bill C-19 succeeds in meeting these goals.

I would like to turn my attention now to the motions in Group No. 1. They refer to provisions in clause 2 of the bill which establishes a new Canada Industrial Relations Board to replace the current Canada Labour Relations Board.

A working group of representatives of labour and management in the federally regulated private sector reached a consensus on this issue. The new board would have a neutral chair and vice-chairs and equal numbers of members representing employees and employers. Balance. In all legislation we must strive to achieve balance.

Provisions establishing the new board are designed to ensure that it better reflects the labour and management communities it serves across the country and that it operates effectively and cost efficiently. The Reform Party should like that. Cost efficient. This is what we have been hearing and this is what we are trying to deliver in this bill.

The bill specifically addresses issues of concern raised by the parties and noted by the task force in its report. Here are a few of the key provisions which will improve administration of the code.

The chair and vice-chairs must have experience and expertise in industrial relations. Surely no one in this House would object to experience on this board.

The minister must consult with organizations representing employees and employers with respect to the appointment of representative members. Again it is a consultation process, which is extremely important to successful board appointments.

The appointment of regionally based members will reduce travel costs. The Reform Party should be delighted with this aspect in the board.

The powers of the chair with respect to supervision and management of the board's work will be clarified. There will be a fair and impartial process for the review of the conduct of a board member. The chair or a vice-chair sitting alone will be able to determine certain applications instead of a three member panel. The board can operate more efficiently by holding pre-hearing conferences using teleconferencing and requiring the production of pertinent documents during the investigative process.

The board must issue decisions within a reasonable timeframe. The use of mediation to resolve issues will be encouraged.

The bill aims to ensure the effective and efficient administration of part I of the code by a new representational board composed of qualified members. I am sure that all members in this House will support a representational board that will be positive, fair and with experience.

I am counting on my colleagues in the Chamber to help get this through.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the foregoing speakers both from the Bloc and from the government. As I look over the motions that form Group No. 1, I see that my colleague from the Bloc has moved that the human resources committee should be the screening process for committee members on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. While we believe that the minister should not have broad autocratic sweeping powers in this area to appoint simply whomever he or she would like as the member has alluded to, we would give mild support to at least seeing the resumés of potential members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Motion No. 2 presented by my colleagues from the Bloc suggests that the vice-chair and the chair should only be limited to one term. I know that the CLRB has had some bad experiences but in the case that we have gone through with the Canada Labour Relations Board we had a chairman that was appointed for a period of 10 years. A period of 10 years is far too long. As a matter of fact I made a representation to the Sims task force that the term should be limited to five years. That is a reflection in the bill which I very much support.

I do not think that limiting the term of the chair or the vice-chair to one term would have much merit. It may be a little difficult to find a person willing to take on the job. I do not see anything wrong with reappointing a very qualified person for a second five year term.

If my colleague from the Bloc is concerned about a patronage appointment, let us take the scenario that perhaps during the time of a chairman's appointment his term runs out and there is a new government or a new minister. That would allow twice as many opportunities for a patronage appointment than at the present time. I believe we would not support the Bloc's Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1.

The bill reduces the term of the members on the board from 10 years to five years and that is supportable. A 10-year appointment is far too long. The Bloc has suggested that it should be reduced even more to a period of three years. I do not believe this is necessary. A five year term is appropriate.

We have had cases that last for months. There have also been cases which are definitely not justified and which have lasted for more than two years.

We should be able to agree that a five year term is a proper length of appointment. I cannot understand the rationale behind my colleague's suggestion that they only be appointed for three years at a time.

It would help with continuity if the terms were staggered. If everyone were to be replaced at once and all the terms expired at the same time, there would be a completely new board at some point in time. If the terms were staggered there would be some experienced members and some not so experienced members. That would certainly help with continuity on the board.

The Bloc's Motion No. 4 provides that when the office of the chair is vacant, the members of the board shall determine who the chairman shall be. That is not a bad system of selecting a chairman. When I was on municipal council the reeve of the municipality was selected in that way. When you ran for a position on council, you did not run for the position of reeve. You were selected from among your peers. That is not too bad of a provision.

I would like to hear more rationale from my colleagues in the Bloc as far as defending their positions. They have only given us cursory rationale as to why they believe we should support their position. I would like to hear more on their position as far as the Canada Industrial Relations Board is concerned.

It is our hope that the government is going to keep a closer eye on the operations of the Canada Industrial Relations Board than it did on the Canada Labour Relations Board. Aside from the very well publicized and documented misuse of public funds which took place within the previous board, there is also the fact that there are cases which have been before the board for more than two years. That is ridiculous. We all in the Chamber are familiar with the phrase that justice delayed is justice denied. That applies in this instance.

There is another thing which certainly has not helped in any way to build up the name of the previous board. It seems that they could not decide on anything among themselves as far as the governing of themselves. The first thing a quasi-judicial board should note is that it must learn to govern itself. What I am talking about is that it managed to rack up something like $250,000 worth of legal costs in internal squabbling in regard to who had what jurisdiction and who had what authority. That is totally unacceptable.

The department, the committee and the House of Commons should have a better handle on what is happening in the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We should be notified as to its operations. We should have a regular report to which the committee, parliament, Canadians and the press can react.

I know we can say that the auditor general has oversight of this entire situation and he does. The auditor general raised this problem time and time again. It was only after much to do was raised by the Reform Party and by the press that these problems in the Canada Labour Relations Board were addressed. We are very sorry that it took so long for these problems to be addressed. We hope that it does not happen like that in the future.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the debate on the reform of the Canada Labour Code.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has submitted some amendments, Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in particular, the essential objective of which is greater democratization, as you can see. In this Parliament, what does “greater democratization” mean? It means that the House of Commons or its committees which, being made up of parliamentarians, are an extension of the House, must be informed of the in-depth examination of matters.

Labour relations are a very important matter. When there is a labour conflict, there is a concern for equity, for balance between the parties. There is generally a union side and an employer side, although this is not always the case, and there is an assumption of debate, of balance.

In principle, there can be no better instrument that a parliament for ensuring a balance. Here we represent different parties. At present, we have a majority government and several opposition parties. This democratic mechanism represented by the House of Commons and the committees makes it possible for everyone's point of view to be heard and listened to. This ensures that the public is better informed about the debates, all the ins and outs relating to the labour conflict, or the improvements to be made in terms of labour relations.

That is why I want to support the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I would like to point out that he has done a wonderful job. He has done an excellent follow-up on all these mechanisms. He is far more of an expert than I am on these matters.

When he speaks on this matter, whether in caucus or in discussions between colleagues, he always stresses the concept of balance. One must not be prejudiced toward one side or the other, but rather try to strike a balance between management and labour. I think that this serves the common interest, the interests of the public.

I therefore support the motions of my hon. colleague for Trois-Rivières.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, this morning we are in the fourth stage of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. Report stage really deals with what came out of committee examination of the bill. There are numerous amendments that we are considering today at this stage of examining the bill.

I was interested to hear the parliamentary secretary's remarks about this bill, waxing eloquent about the amount of consultation that had been done. A great deal of consultation did go on with respect to these changes to the Canada Labour Code.

However, what the parliamentary secretary did not mention and what is very unfortunate is that a lot of the results of these consultations were simply ignored in the final construction of the bill.

There is not a whole lot of merit in having wide consultations, a long and detailed report and then having recommendations coming out of those consultations if the government simply goes its own way at the end of the day in constructing the legislation. To a large degree this is what happened following the so-called consultations.

Consultations should be very largely reflected in the final result but, I would submit, that is not the case with this bill.

The parliamentary secretary also made a rather strange and bizarre assertion that if no one is happy with a piece of legislation then it must be good. I find this a little hard to credit, particularly when there are interest groups involved in the formation of this legislation which to my knowledge have never expressed themselves satisfied with any degree of accommodation of their wishes. There always seems to be with perhaps all groups that the blue sky and the green grass is always a little further over the horizon.

That should not be the litmus test of legislation. The litmus test really should be whether this bill serves the Canadian people and our country. I did not hear any of that discussed by the parliamentary secretary.

The parliamentary secretary did talk about the goals of the bill being a productive and viable economy. It is certainly debatable and we will be debating whether this bill does anything to ensure and enhance a productive and viable economy. I would argue it does not meet this goal at all. It will have an adverse, negative effect on the economy in many respects.

For all the talk about balance and all the talk about doing what gives the best balance in the competing interests involved, it is debatable that balance is not achieved in this legislation.

The first group of amendments proposed comes from the Bloc. Amazingly enough, some people will say Reform supports and is approving of the thrust of these five amendments. We do not agree with every detail of them but I think these amendments were well considered and put forward in a very constructive way.

The first amendment is particularly constructive because it states that appointments to this board which wields a lot of clout in the affairs of our country, particularly in the labour and economic affairs regulated by the federal government, should be made by parliament through its committee which deals with these affairs, the HRD committee.

The present legislation leaves the appointments strictly to the government, the cabinet and the minister. Surely we have seen the repugnant effects of government patronage appointments to these important positions. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of how government cannot and should not be trusted exclusively to have the final say over these kinds of important designations.

We would strongly support all members of parliament's having a strong input into who fills these important positions. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc who indicated this would ensure that all points of view are heard.

If the government is serious about balance in this legislation surely it would welcome an amendment which would move a long way to ensuring the kind of balance it pretends it wants to achieve by making sure all points of view are heard regarding who sits on this important industrial relations board.

The second of the five amendments talks about limiting the term of the members of the board to one. term. I suppose we have to ask ourselves as parliamentarians would we feel it would be appropriate if we were allowed to sit in parliament for only one term. Some people would say yes. If we have to put up with the rascals for one term that is plenty.

During our first term we are on a steep learning curve as members of parliament. We gain valuable experience which allows us to go on with an enhanced level of competence. If we are diligent and well meaning we can achieve this in our first term and provide a very valuable service.

There may be members of the board who do not rise to those higher levels of competence and ability. They could be weeded out. But if there are extremely effective, knowledgeable and well informed people on the board who know what they are doing, who know the players and who have a great deal of insight into the process, they should not be turfed out after only one round.

On the three year term limit that has been suggested rather than five, three years goes pretty fast, especially the older we get. I had a birthday yesterday and three years does not seem like that long ago, nor does five years seem that long ago. I am not sure that is a very substantive debate. That has been proposed as the third amendment and I do not have strong feelings about it.

The fourth represents changes to the legislation. Presently if the chair becomes vacant, the minister will fill the vacancy. The legislation proposes that the board members fill the vacancy. If Motion No. 1 is passed, the board members will be chosen in a balanced way through input from all members of parliament. I presume there would be a pretty good balance on the board and it would have the best chance to choose a good replacement for a vacant chair. Board members would know the players since they would have worked with them. They would undoubtedly choose someone who had their highest respect and whom they felt they could work with effectively and efficiently.

The fifth amendment is that any report with respect to disciplinary or remedial measures relating to members of the board would not just fall silent at the minister's level but would be passed on to parliament through the relevant committee, the HRD committee. That committee could ensure that if remedial or disciplinary measures were recommended, they would be properly followed up on. This would lead to accountability on the board, something Canadians want.

I commend my colleagues from the Bloc for some pretty well thought out amendments. I hope these comments will help members deciding whether they should be supported.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and with interest to my colleagues from both sides of the House, especially to the parliamentary secretary. I agree with many of her comments. Although she commented in good faith, she gave the government's position and at times failed to shed sufficient light on some of the provisions of this bill.

Bill C-19 is a very important piece of legislation. For all intents and purposes it regulates the lives and work of about 750,000 Canadians who work either directly for the federal government or for federally regulated companies in the banking, telecommunications and transportation sectors.

This bill is very important for the number of citizens it affects. It is just as important as the Canada Labour Code. This kind of legislation is not amended very often. Bill C-19 is probably the first major review of the rules that have regulated the workplace for the past 25 years.

The object of the bill is important because it affects the delicate relationship between management and the workers. It affects the delicate equilibrium that ought to be maintained at all times between the investors, the bosses, the risk takers and the job creators on one hand and the workers, the people who bring their lives efforts to service of the enterprise on the other hand.

Therefore we must seek just and fair remuneration, working conditions and social benefits which create a milieu that is fair, just and rewarding for the workers.

Regarding the motions moved by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, Motion No. 1 for example provides in essence that, instead of being appointed by the governor in council or by cabinet, the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the board would be appointed by the minister, on the recommendation of the House committee dealing with matters relating to human resources development. This committee would have to hold public hearings before making a recommendation.

Our party will support this motion put forward by our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. This is something that already exists in Ontario. It ensures a more open appointment process. The public hearings should not, however, be allowed to turn into a circus.

Motion No. 2 of our colleague states that the five-year term of the chairperson and vice-chairperson shall not be renewed. I must say that our party will vote against this motion. It makes no sense not to renew their mandate if they are competent.

Now turning to Motion No. 3. Instead of being appointed by the governor in council, members of the board, whether full time or part time, would be appointed by the minister, on recommendation of the House committee dealing with matters relating to human resources development. The committee would have to hold public hearings before making a recommendation. Our party will support this motion.

Motion No. 4 states that if the chairperson of the board is absent or unable to act, a vice-chairperson designated by the minister shall act as chairperson. This part is similar to what the bill currently provides.

If the office of chairperson is vacant, a replacement would be elected from within the board instead of being designated by the minister. We will vote against this motion. What this amendment is supposed to achieve is not really clear. Is it intended as a temporary measure? Otherwise, it contradicts the Bloc amendments calling for the chairperson to be appointed on the recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons. This provision seems to be pointless since it is unlikely that the position would remain vacant for several months. The other provisions of the bill seem to properly address these concerns.

As for Motion No. 5, it provides that, when a member of the board is subject to an inquiry, the judge would be required to submit his findings to both the minister and the committee of the House of Commons. We will support this motion. Should a problem arise, the matter would be referred to the members of this House, who could suggest an appropriate course of action. This reinforces accountability to Parliament.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I recently came in from my riding, got off the plane and raced here to find that we missed one of our speaking opportunities. I thank you for recognizing me now and giving me the chance to speak to the five first motions put forth for consideration to amend Bill C-19 and the Canada Labour Code.

I have reviewed these five motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières. While I fully understand the tone and content, and even some of the merits of what the member for Trois-Rivières is obviously trying to argue, I cannot support the idea of introducing these changes at this time.

The five motions are clustered together for obvious reasons because they deal with the same subject matter, the composition of the newly formed board and the representational qualities of the board, the appointment of the chair and the vice-chair, and their terms of office.

I do not think I will break them down in detail and comment on them one by one in that regard, except to start my remarks by saying how critical this part of Bill C-19 is. The whole review of the board and its structure and the fact that it will be truly representational now is a huge leap forward for the labour relations climate in the country.

I should say as well that the ideas stated in Bill C-19, the amendments to the code, are the result of exhaustive consultation, two years of consultation with labour and management all across the country. Everybody had a kick at the cat. Everybody had ample opportunity to try to make recommendations that would make this a better and a more functional labour board.

As the Sims task force points to as its mandate, we were seeking a balance, some way to satisfy the interests of all the true stakeholders.

After all this consultation, this give and take and co-operation, they arrived at the changes that are called for in the original Bill C-19. The minister makes the appointments. The terms are set. The stakeholders recommend the other members of the board so that it is truly a representational board. All those things are part of a fine balance and part of a larger package that is Bill C-19. I would be very reluctant to alter it at this time for the risk of upsetting that delicate balance. It would not be showing respect for the whole consultation process that took place in the previous two years.

Most of the parties involved are very satisfied with the current package. It was not just Bill C-19. Going back to Bill C-66 this exhaustive consultation process took place. It went through the various levels of debate in the House of Commons and made it all the way to the Senate before the election was called.

There have been ample opportunities to make any changes that people felt were necessary or desirable at any one of those stages.

What we have is a situation now where the parties that truly rely on the labour code, the federally regulated employers, the employees who work for them and their representatives, are eager to see Bill C-19 moved forward.

The package is satisfactory. The package does not serve all of our needs and certainly from labour's side there are many things we wish were there, many things we wish we could have convinced our partners in industry to adopt. It is not always possible. It was a give and a take. It was very much the type of co-operation that we should be looking for as a model in other forms of legislation. I believe that all stakeholders put their own special interests aside. They left their baggage at the door and did what was right to make the labour board a more practical, relevant and functional institution.

It certainly needed review. It needed amendment. We had a terrible situation with the board where there was a huge backlog of cases. I believe there were as many as 90 applications for certification pending. These are very time sensitive. When workers have the courage to sign a union card and to organize themselves so that they can bargain collectively, there is always a backlash from the employer. Often there are subtle forms of coercion, intimidation or harassment which make the workers rethink whether this is the right thing they are doing. Any delays increase the odds of that happening.

With this newly constituted board I believe that case work will be dealt with more quickly, the backlog will be fixed up and these workers will have access to the justice they deserve.

This is one of the reasons we are hoping for speedy passage of Bill C-19 so those workers who have legitimate issues pending can start having them dealt with and heard by this newly constituted board.

Motions Nos. 1 through 5 seem to minimize the powers of the minister and add authority and powers to the committee that deals with human resources issues. In other words, the minister's role would be minimized and the role of the standing committee would be augmented. While there may be some merit in that kind of argument, in actual fact it would not change the balance of power in that the standing committee for HRDC is dominated by government by virtue of the number of seats that it is given.

Surely, if the minister wants a certain thing to happen, whether it is directly in his or her hands or in the hands of the committee members, the government's wishes will come about. I do not believe there is enough merit in this argument. Even if we were convinced this was the right thing to do, I do not think it has enough merit to delay the passage of Bill C-19 with further debate and obstacles and so on.

We know the official opposition will be introducing a number of motions designed to delay the implementation of Bill C-19. We will have to deal with those when they come before us. However, in this case an issue such as the composition of the board or the appointment of the chairs and the vice-chairs or the term of office in which they sit in itself is not enough to delay the passage of what is definitely a very worthy piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will benefit working people as they conduct themselves in a federally regulated workplace.

In my mind there is nothing concrete in this package of motions that will make Bill C-19 any better to any degree. We are dealing with minutiae here. We are dealing with fine tuning an idea.

The real change, the one that we should be most interested in, is the fact that the board will now be representational. It will have a neutral chairperson, a representative from labour and a representative from management. In that kind of balance I think we will achieve some of the mandate of the Sims task force, achieve a balance in Canadian labour relations.

Anybody who has been a practitioner in labour relations knows that is the goal. The key objective is fairness. Natural justice and fairness are the two yardsticks by which we measure the success or the failure of the industrial relations process, the quasi-judicial process of the way we conduct ourselves in the federally regulated workplace of today.

If I saw anything that would substantially make Bill C-19 better I think I could stand here and recommend that our caucus vote for it. As much as I have a great deal of respect for the member for Trois-Rivières—and I know he is a committed trade unionist and somebody who is sincere about making the environment better for Canadian workers—the only reason I cannot support this package of motions is that I do not see it making Bill C-19 substantially better. Therefore the recommendation to my NDP caucus is that we will be voting against this package of motions.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the bill earlier this year. One of the reasons I like to speak to labour legislation is that in my previous life pre-parliament I worked in the union certification climate in the forest industry. I currently represent an area with a very high union membership, the same area where I worked previously. It is one of the many industries that has undergone tremendous change over the last several years.

We are seeing that on a global scale. We are certainly seeing it big time in the resource industries in Canada. We are going to see those kinds of changes coming to government as well.

I know there have been a lot of changes in government bureaucracy, but they pale in comparison to what has been going on in the private sector.

Some of the things that I was involved in, for example, went far beyond labour negotiations, union-management style negotiations. They went into joint training on environmental concerns, how to implement things like changing operating methods to meet changing standards in the forest practices code and all those kinds of things.

It blurs the lines between who belongs to management and who belongs to the union. Everyone has a joint goal and it is very refreshing.

Anything we can do to create an environment and an atmosphere where people have the same set of objectives and tend to be headed in the same direction would be very useful indeed. If we can take the polarization out, take the confrontation out, then I think we have really achieved something. There are some proposals on the table from the Reform Party that tend to do that.

I realize that does not address the specifics of this bill, but I thought I would put it on the table anyway.

What we are talking about today is a bill that would amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code to rename the Canada Labour Relations Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

This bill died in the Senate in the last parliament when it was Bill C-66. It died for good reasons and now it has been brought back with minor changes. The changes that have been made still do not address very significant problems in the bill. It is still laced with problems.

The group of amendments that we are addressing at this time have all been put forward by the Bloc. They are Bloc Motions Nos. 1 to 5. I might add that 30 motions have been put forward to amend this legislation. Other amendments were proposed at committee. This gives us some idea of the significance of the desire to effect change within this legislative package.

All of the amendments we will be discussing over the next several days came from either the official opposition as Reform amendments or from the Bloc.

Motion No. 1 is very similar to an amendment that Reform moved in committee. It requires that candidates for the chair and vice-chair of the CIRB be appointed only if the parliamentary committee approves and it requires the parliamentary committee to hold hearings.

If this is thought about on a larger scale, we could go beyond the CIRB to think about this in other contexts. There is growing pressure from the populous, from anyone concerned about democracy, to head toward removing patronage from these positions to make them more effective.

We have another circumstance right now where our information commissioner is retiring. He is saying publicly that the last person we want to run the information commissioner's office is a career bureaucrat. He says we want somebody who has displayed independent spirit, independent means and independence from government, someone who will lend themselves to an atmosphere which tends to hold government accountable as opposed to trying to support the bureaucracy against the best interests of society.

This is a growing concern and one we have brought to the table for several years in this House. We would like to see this type of motion expanded to include all of our boards because patronage rewards friends rather than putting people—

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum in the House.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

And the count having been taken:

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I see a quorum. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North has the floor.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I finished talking about Motion No. 1, which can basically be summarized by saying that we need to appoint people based on merit, on their ability to do the job without being hampered by previous baggage, and to do it in a non-partisan fashion.

Motion No. 2 deals with term limits. It limits the chair and vice-chair, that we previously talked about, to one term only. This legislation already takes the term from ten years down to five years without amendment. Five years is certainly a lot better than ten years. How do we hold someone accountable if their appointment lasts that long?

I believe the living example is Mr. Weatherill, who was removed from office after great pain because of spending habits and other things which were considered to be far beyond what was allowed in terms of what was good value for money and accountability to the public.

There are two sides to this issue. We have to have a term long enough to create continuity, while at the same time we do not want such a long term that we end up with people who can essentially become unaccountable. We could use this argument for any official, whether it is a member of Parliament, a member of the Senate or any other public body or institution.

Motion No. 3 is a Bloc motion which would reduce appointments to three years. We see some merit in reducing the appointment of members of the board from five years to three, but we see merit in continuing the five year term for the chair and vice-chair simply because of the continuity question. I am not really hung up on the issue of three years or five years, but it is certainly better than ten years. Five years is probably a bit too long for a regular board member.

Motion No. 4 would authorize the minister to appoint a vice-chair as a temporary chair. This would be in the case of a vacancy. It would require that the appointment be determined by a majority vote of the members of the board as opposed to selection by the minister.

I will finish on this note. It is important that the structure of the board be done right. If it is not done right everything else does not matter. These are important amendments.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, as we heard earlier from my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill, there are a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the consultations which took place regarding this bill. It is the consultations that really bother us. As you said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, holding consultations does not mean that you actually have to listen. We feel that the consultations on this particular bill have not resulted in any meaningful changes, as is the case with a lot of bills on the Hill.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would call notice that we do not have a quorum.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche is calling for a quorum.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I see a quorum. The hon. member for North Vancouver has the floor.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making earlier was that there has been insufficient listening to the consultation on this bill. The exercise we have just gone through indicates that what I said was correct. There are no people listening to what is being said about this bill. The consultation goes on but nobody listens. My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill made that point quite strongly earlier today.

The fact that 30 different motions are being put forward at report stage, as mentioned by another member a few minutes ago, indicates the amount of dissent there is on the bill. Notwithstanding the argument from one of the members of the NDP that it is a bill they would like to see pushed through fairly quickly, the fact is this is a bill with a lot that still needs to be done.

Instead of looking to the future we are going to be left with some outdated labour practices that will not be taking us forward into the future. Those clients of the services that are covered by this bill will have no alternative in the event of a strike. The procedures contained in this bill for handling problems such as strikes are still outmoded and outdated.

Yesterday in my office one of the representatives of the Government of New Zealand was visiting me. We were discussing the never ending road work that is taking place on Wellington Street. It seems to go on for years and years and now they are working on the road outside the West Block. This is evidence of the type of labour climate we have. These things can go on and on for years and years with no resolution. We need to inject some efficiency and modern practices into government.

The representative from the Government of New Zealand stated that they had suffered from these types of situations as well but it does not happen any more. It is all done by private contract with set dates and responsibility. There are alternatives in the event of strikes. I stray a little from the topic.

I return to the issue of appointments to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The people of Canada frankly are thoroughly sick of the patronage which riddles every aspect of the various boards like the parole board, the immigration and refugee board and even the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you look shocked that there could be any patronage in the Senate and I am sorry if you had not noticed that it is filled with patronage.

Club Chrétien has been more active than club Mulroney in terms of the rewards that the clubs to members. An enormous number of failed Liberal candidates have been appointed to all manner of boards. We are concerned that they are going to end up on the Canada Industrial Relations Board as well.

I hear a couple of members laughing on the government side because they know that is the truth. We are going to end up with patronage appointees on this board. Then we have to start wondering what are the credentials other than being Liberal. It is certainly open to question. One just has to look at the list. It includes Liberal riding presidents, failed candidates, campaign workers, bagmen, ministerial assistants. These are the types of people who get appointed to that type of board. I can give some examples.

Recently André Bachand, Liberal candidate in 1988 and a long time Liberal president in Brome—Missisquoi was appointed to the National Parole Board. Elizabeth McKall, the wife of a Liberal riding president in Edmonton West was appointed to the National Parole Board.

The immigration and refugee board seems to be the most common recipient of Liberal largesse. No less than 14 appointments of well-known Liberals to the immigration and refugee board occurred during 1997 and 1998. To give some examples: Anita Fuoco Boscariol, twice defeated candidate; Lucie Blais, defeated candidate in 1993; Milagros Eustaquoi, failed candidate; Ronald Guerette, former riding president; Elke Homsi, former legislative assistant; Joan Lylian Kouri, defeated candidate; Gary McCauley, defeated MP; Anna Terrana, defeated MP; and Raza Naqvi, yet another failed candidate. They are just some examples of the type of people who get appointed to these boards, nothing but patronage appointments.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

An hon. member

Mary Clancy.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

One of my colleagues mentioned the name of Mary Clancy, who was appointed to the high commission in Boston.

It is absolutely incredible. We look at those sorts of appointments and we have to shake our heads and ask what other qualifications did they have other than being Liberal. I can bet that we are going to end up with the Canada Industrial Relations Board packed with Liberal patronage appointments.

In terms of the role of the board and the Bloc motions that have been put forward, Reform actually supports the Bloc Motion No. 4 in this regard because it injects at least a little bit of democracy into the board. It actually allows the board to determine by a majority vote who should become the chair if it becomes vacant.

Mr. Speaker, that is an amusing concept to you because I know you are very supportive of the appointment process. The threatening idea that members of the board would actually elect their own chair, what a terrible thought. That would be one of the safeguards that would perhaps remove an element of the patronage and control that goes into those boards.

In reviewing the various motions that are from the Bloc in this group, we are quite supportive of Motion No. 1. The candidates for the chair and vice-chairs of the Canada Industrial Relations Board would be appointed only if the human resources development committee approved.

There is a very good argument for much more transparency in relation to all of this patronage that goes on. Actually I am sure that soon Club Chrétien is going to be running out of candidates to appoint to these various boards. Most of them must have cashed in their mileage points already.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

An hon. member

Failed Liberal candidates.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

My colleague mentions there will be a lot more failed Liberal candidates but there will not be a Liberal in charge to appoint them to the various boards so that takes care of that one.

We are opposed to Motion No. 2 put forward by the Bloc. It limits the chair and vice-chairs to one term. At first glance that may seem in conflict with our opposition to appointments. If there is a very good chair who has been elected by the members of the board, we would like to see it made possible to extend that term.

We are also opposing Motion No. 3. The bill reduces the terms of the appointees from ten years to five years while the amendment reduces the term to three years for the chair, vice-chairs and members. Our position is that five years should be the minimum for stability and continuity.