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

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the study of the motions in Group No. 2 and I will now put those motions to the House.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-19, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 14 with the following:

“13. Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

29.(1) The Board shall, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to whether employees in a unit wish to have a particular trade union represent them as their bargaining agent, order that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the unit where it is satisfied that at least thirty-five per cent of the employees in the unit are members of the trade unit applying for certification.

(2) Any person who was not an employee”

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-19, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 9 on page 16 with the following:

“(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board may revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative.”

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, before looking specifically at Group No. 2 of motions, I would like to mention that I committed an almost unpardonable omission just now when I was listing all the groups of employees whom we would have liked to have seen receive more attention in the review of the Canada Labour Code.

I mentioned members of the RCMP, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service, but I neglected to mention pregnant workers, on behalf of whom the unions made highly legitimate representations to us that we wish to convey to the House.

Unfortunately, because of the same process I explained earlier, because of the government's more specific approach this year to the bill before us, we are unable to introduce an amendment that would have made preventative withdrawal possible for pregnant or nursing workers in cases where the health of the mother or the unborn child is at risk. We find this regrettable and want these people to know that we are concerned about them.

I will comment on each of the amendments in Group No. 2, beginning with our own, which has to do with clause 6 on page 12 of the bill. Clause 6 reads as follows:

  1. The Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing.

This seems excessive, to put it bluntly. We fail to see the validity of that provision. The information notes provided by the government do not convince us that this is appropriate. This could lead the board to take actions that might look like arbitration or abusive measures, and we are not at all convinced that this clause is appropriate.

Motion No. 7, proposed by the Reform Party, deals with clause 13, on page 14 of the bill, and concerns the spirit of the legislation. If I understand its position correctly, the Reform Party is very true to itself. The bill provides that scabs cannot take part in a vote on a union's representational capacity.

Under the Reformers' motion, these replacement workers, or scabs, would be allowed to take part in such a vote, something which we strongly oppose. We must not, in any way, legitimize the hiring of replacement workers, whether it is before, during or after the fact. Therefore, we will oppose this motion by the Reform Party.

Motion No. 8 deals with clause 16 on page 16 of the bill and has to do with employers' representatives. There is a provision with which we have trouble, and this is the reason for our motion. That provision reads:

(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative.

This provision deals with employers' representation on the board. It provides that the employers represented on the board may, for reasons of their own, deem the employer representative no longer qualified to represent them. We respect the fact that these employers may repudiate—to put it bluntly—their representative on the board, without going any further.

Based on the wording of the bill, the board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative. We do not feel it is up to the board to interfere in such matters. It is up to the employers represented to proceed as they see fit and to designate those they see fit to designate.

The board's control over this aspect is a source of concern. Taken to the extreme, the board could decide to retain the representation made by a person whom the employer had indicated it no longer wished to be represented by. This therefore confers an undue control to the board, which is why we are presenting this motion.

Then we have the last motion in Group No. 2, on page 36. This is probably a marked improvement, and is the reason why the public is so pleased, as we must admit it is, with the work of the Simms commission and with the Simms report, which talks about the balance that may have been struck. This mechanism is an important one, and could be described as modern. It is a response to a need that is recognized in the report.

It is stated that the board can, despite a lack of evidence of majority support, certify a union when there has been unfair labour practice or serious infringement on the free choice of employees to free negotiation, to free representation. Thus, when the employer has obviously behaved in an unfair and abusive manner, when there has been intimidation or violence, the legislator may, via the board, authorize certification of a trade union, may certify it to represent a given employee group.

As you have seen, the Reform Party is opposed to such a thing. This is a societal choice, a social as opposed to purely economic point of view, where a deaf ear is turned regardless of even seriously unfair labour practices, as the government's explanatory notes indicate.

We on this side are vehemently opposed to this. I personally find it a very up to date, very generous point of view, provided of course that the board has set out clear guidelines.

It must be hoped that the board will show some wisdom, that it will ensure that it does not become common practice to give such accreditation without proper consultation or a vote. There would, I assume, have to be exceptional circumstances for this clause to be applied.

Those are, therefore, the comments I wanted to make on the four motions in Group No. 2.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Guelph—Wellington Ontario

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, the contents of Bill C-19 are largely based on the recommendations of the Sims task force in its report entitled “Seeking a Balance”.

While management and labour representatives may have wanted to see more in some areas and less in others depending on their perspective, the Sims recommendations were deemed acceptable as an overall balanced package. This truly has been a bill of give and take and has been successful in achieving a balanced package.

The official opposition has put forward motions that would radically alter the balance of the package. The amendment it is proposing to section 29 of the code would change current certification procedures and require the board to hold representation votes in all cases.

The Sims task force did not recommend such a change and major federally regulated employers have not asked for such a change. Majority support is the basis for union certification under part I of the code. This would not change under Bill C-19.

Under current code provisions where an applicant union shows proof of membership, signed membership cards and payment of $5 fees, of between 35% and 50% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the board must hold a certification vote. Where the application is supported by a majority of employees, the board may hold a representation vote or may certify the applicant based on the membership evidence which is verified by board officers.

The task force found no evidence that the current system is not working or that it has been abused. In fact the task force noted two advantages to the current system. First, it requires the applicant trade union to be supported by the majority of employees in the bargaining unit and not only the majority of those who vote. Second, it reduces opportunities for inappropriate employer interference with the employees' choice.

As recommended by the Sims task force, under Bill C-19 the board's authority to verify union support by holding a representation vote in any case is retained.

The official opposition is also seeking to remove the remedial certification provision. This provision would allow the board to certify a trade union which has not presented evidence of majority support where the board is of the opinion that the union would have obtained such support if not for unfair labour practices committed by the employer.

Employers are uniquely positioned to have significant influence over employees given their ability to profoundly affect an employee's continuing job security and his or her economic destiny. Where employees fear reprisals from their employer, they may not freely express their true wishes even in a secret ballot vote.

The remedial certification provision is designed to discourage employers who might consider engaging in unfair labour practices in order to avoid a unionized workplace. It is neither a new nor a radical provision. Five provincial labour boards have similar authority. They use it infrequently in order to remedy the worst cases of employer interference or intimidation which makes it impossible to determine the true wishes of employees through a representation vote.

I would also like to remind members that the provision will be interpreted by the new Canada Industrial Relations Board which will have equal labour and management representation.

In commenting on this provision, a University of Toronto professor of law told the standing committee “The ultimate purpose of the provision reflects a very fundamental legal principle and that is that one should not profit from one's own wrong”. That is, the employer should not get the result it seeks as a consequence of violating the code. I agree with the professor and urge members to support this provision.

I would also like to briefly address the motion to delete the provision in Bill C-19 which authorizes the board to determine applications without holding an oral hearing.

As a quasi-judicial tribunal, the board is required in all cases to respect the rules of natural justice. While affected parties have the right to make representations to a tribunal, there is no absolute right to an oral hearing. In fact the board and many other tribunals regularly determine applications without holding an oral hearing.

Board decisions are reviewable by the federal court of appeal. One of the reasons the court can overturn a board decision is if it finds that the board has failed to respect the rules of natural justice.

Under Bill C-19 the board would continue to decide whether or not an oral hearing is necessary based on the circumstances of each case.

As is currently its policy, the board will hold an oral hearing when one is required in order to establish facts through witness testimony. This provision simply clarifies the board's authority to make determinations based on the written evidence and representations of the parties where the facts of the case are not in dispute.

If the board were required to hold a hearing in every case, administration of the code would become even slower and more costly. This would not serve the interests of the parties or contribute to positive labour management relations. I do not support such an approach. I strongly urge members to oppose this motion.

Finally, with respect to the other motion in this group, which modifies the process for the revocation of an employer representative in the longshoring industry, I fail to see the rationale for the proposed change. The choice of an employer representative belongs to the employees concerned. They should be able to apply to the board to change representatives and the board should authorize such a change if the representative no longer has majority support or is otherwise no longer qualified to act.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, we certainly had some confusion before I was allowed to speak. I guess at one point I was lamenting the fact that I would not have many people to speak to and now we have quite a government crowd listening to my presentation. I am really pleased that the government is taking so much interest in this issue and that I have such a large group to speak to.

I am talking about this group of motions, but it is something much bigger than that. This whole Bill C-19 is something that all government members here should be aware of. What we are really talking about is a situation that will impact on us as Canadians in the 21st century in an international way.

As the House knows I have great interest in the international community and in how well Canada is doing. We often put ourselves out as number one. The United Nations ranks us as number one, which is all well and good, but when we travel extensively throughout the world we begin to realize that we are falling behind.

We are falling behind the world in a number of areas. One of these areas relates to Bill C-19. It is in our competitiveness, our transportation network and our ability for sales in something as valuable as grain and other commodities.

The crowd continues to build in the government ranks. Obviously they are very interested in what I have to say.

In the globalization of the world, three major trading blocs are developing: the European Union; the Americas, and all the hope we have for that; and southeast Asia. We have to look at how globalization relates to the actual situation of our labour and that valuable resource this country has.

We have a very highly trained and skilled workforce. We have a good education system. However, as I pointed out, we are falling behind in the world because we are failing to compete as well. We are failing to be conscious of productivity, of making our industries the most productive they can possibly be. We are not keeping up the standard of quality control that we require. Most of all, we are not being seen any more as a reliable supplier of products such as our agricultural products.

The effect of prolonged strikes on our ability to be reliable marketers in the world cannot be imagined until we talk to Japanese merchants or Chinese purchasers that want to buy malt barley from us. We start to realize the problem when Japanese shipowners ask how we would like to have a ship that has been booked for months and months sitting idle in a port for 30, 40 or 50 days. The ship was to make another shipment down the road yet it was sitting there. It is all about transportation. It is all about our ability to deliver. It is all about reliability.

We have to start thinking about these things. This place must get off its old line of working in a vacuum, that Canada is the greatest, that Canada is number one, and start thinking about how we are to compete in the 21st century. That is where Bill C-19 becomes such a important bill.

This group of amendments and the previous groups of amendments come down to democratization and what it means to Canadians. We need to talk about this board. We need to ask ourselves if this is the modern way to approach the problems I have identified. Is this the best way to deal with the situation?

Our motion in Group No. 7 talks about having unions involved only when they can get employees to sign union certification cards at a level of 35%. That is not very high and that is not really democracy, but at least it is a long way from where we are now. The amendments in Group No. 2 proposed by our party will help to bring democracy, accountability and to build a system that is transparent, acceptable and competitive to take care of the problem respecting our ability to deal in the global market.

We must look at this board. We must ask who should be on it. As a number of previous speakers have indicated, who do we expect will show up on a board like this one? If we follow the traditional status quo of dealing with boards we know who will be there. We know they will have to be fundraisers or retired or defeated candidates. They will have to be somebody with connections to be on this board. Is that what gives us the transparent and functional board that our businessmen and farmers want to have in the 21st century? I do not think so.

I will tell a story to point out what I mean. I attended the APEC conference in Vancouver as the foreign affairs critic for our party. I was at a function where most government officials from the various countries were present. At my table was a defeated Liberal candidate who had been given a two day junket to Vancouver as his reward for having run and been defeated by the Liberal Party.

At this very important meeting there were officials from various countries. At our table was a representative from New Guinea. Our illustrious representative of the government asked some very important questions of this delegate from Papua, New Guinea. He said “You are from Papua. There is no such name as that. What a silly name that is”. That is where that delegate lives; that is his country; that is where he is from.

He thought it was quite a funny name and quite silly. Then he went on to say “I thought this was just for people who were from Asia. I did not know you could belong to APEC and not be from Asia. What are you doing here? You don't look Asian”. Was this is a diplomatic thing to say to this man from Papua, New Guinea? He really was not impressed at that point and looked at our representative and said “Canada is a member of APEC as well”.

These are the types of people the government appoints to boards. They end up on committees representing Canadians. This does not allow us to become productive. This does not allow us to become competitive. This does nothing for us in the international community.

When we look at these motions, at Bill C-19 and the huge government turnout that came to hear this message, I just have to be impressed. I want to close at this point and think it would only be fitting to ask for quorum so that some of the members who were not here might come in to catch the last word or two.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Just to be clear, is the member for Red Deer calling quorum?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Yes, I am. I would like to call quorum.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We have quorum.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on record, because the hon. member indicated for the record that there were no Liberal members present, that there were 18 Liberal members here, one Reform—

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Red Deer for raising the points that he did. I would like to expand on what he said.

He was talking about the importance of the bill to international relations. I would like to take that from a more local perspective and to pose a question. How will passage of the bill help the average Canadian? Is the average Canadian even aware of it?

In order to do that we have to examine who the legislation affects directly. It affects about 10% of Canada's workforce, those people who work in federally regulated industries like transportation, communication and all workers in the Northwest Territories; in other words, about 700,000 of the Canadian workforce.

We must ask ourselves what is the impact of the bill on the average person in Canada. Specifically, will it improve things for the average person in Canada? Does the passage of the bill mean that there will be an improvement in for instance the mail service? No, it does not. It does not preclude any work stoppages such as the one we saw in mail service last winter. It has not improved those situations at all.

If we are to open up the industrial relations portion of the Canada Labour Code, why not address some of these problems that mean something to the average person in Canada? Every person in Canada at one point or another mails a letter or receives a letter. First class mail is a monopoly of the post office. How has the legislation improved mail service in Canada? The short answer is that it has not improved mail service in Canada.

Perhaps it has improved Canada's ability to be a reliable exporter of goods. Let us look at that. Canada has ports on both ends of the country, a huge country that has reliable salt water ports both on the west coast and east coast of the country. They are extremely important outlets to world markets.

Let us hope that the industrial relations portion of the bill has made some improvement here. As we examine the bill we have to ask ourselves what those improvements could possibly be. Would it mean that as a result of changes to the bill that Canadians can more easily get products to port, loaded on ships, out through the port and off to customers? No. As my colleague has pointed out, we still have the bottleneck problem of trying to get our goods through ports which with great regularity have some sort of work stoppages.

To be fair, it is not always a strike. Oftentimes it is a lockout. What difference does it make to the average person on the street who is affected by the overall economy of Canada, the impact of not being able to get our goods to port and on to world markets? I do not think we have improved that at all.

Why have we not? The only thing that I can see is that the government is unwilling to address the fact that we need to have some sort of dispute settlement mechanism if collective bargaining fails, and it has been failing; otherwise we would not have these work stoppages. It works in some cases but it seems like when things get critical the work stoppages occur right at the time when we need ports the most.

The work stoppages in the post office never occur during summer holidays. They always seem to occur around Christmas-time when the demand for the services of the post office is the greatest.

As well, work stoppages at the ports do not seem to happen in the spring when the farmers are busy seeding. They always seem to happen in the wintertime when the farmers are cleaning out their granaries, trying to market their crops. It affects a lot more people than just simply the farmers. It affects the people on the railways. It affects the people of Canada, in general, because lost sales have to be recovered somehow.

Canada is not the only producer of these products. Whether they are agricultural products, dehydrated alfalfa or potash, it does not matter. These are products that we have to get to market in order to maintain our businesses. As we are often told, and we concur, this is a great, prosperous country in which to live, but we have to pay attention to business. We simply cannot be in a position where we can lose market after market and maintain a buoyant position in the world.

When I say that this bill does not do anything to help the average Canadian, it could be asked: Why is the average Canadian not saying something? Why are they not up in arms? Why are they not telling us to make some improvements?

As I pointed out, this only affects about 10% of the Canadian workforce. The average Canadian is so busy trying to make a living and paying their taxes that they do not have time to worry about problems like this. That is the reason we are raising these problems today and trying to make some improvements to this bill.

We would like very much to see products, regardless of whether they originate at the farmgate, at the lumber mill, or at the mine, to be able to reach port through a dependable transportation system, to be loaded onto ships and to be carried to market.

This has a huge impact on the Canadian economy. Anything that has a large impact on the Canadian economy has a large impact on individual people who, at first glance, would say “That is the Canada Labour Code. That is industrial relations. I do not work for the federal government. It has no effect on me”. But it does. It affects every person in Canada.

There are provisions in this bill which we consider to be less than democratic. There are provisions which would enable the Canada Industrial Labour Board to certify a union without a majority indicating they would like to belong to the union.

Of course we will hear from the NDP, and we have heard from the government, that it can only do that provided there is clear evidence before the board that the employer has used some sort of unfair labour tactics, as if implying that it is only the employer who can use pressure tactics on a group of people.

I submit that this is undemocratic. Certification of a union should take place by secret ballot. When a person goes into the polling booth to cast a ballot nobody can put pressure on that person. They have the security and the confidentiality of the secret ballot. That is how unions should be certified.

We have heard many times about how this legislation seeks a balance. I would submit that if it is fair to certify a union without a majority, it should be fine to de-certify a union without a majority.

Furthermore, I submit that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will have tremendous pressure put on it by union bosses to see every case brought before it as undermining the unions. Every case will be pled on that basis.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate and I see a very, very pale attendance from the other side. I would like a quorum call, please.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There is a quorum.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do something a bit novel. I would like to actually speak to one of the motions that we are dealing with currently, which will be a bit of a shift from the last couple of speakers. We heard everything from Papua, New Guinea, to international affairs and how the labour code is going to have a broad-sweeping international detrimental impact on our country's abilities.

To deal with some of the specifics of why we are really here today, I would like to talk to Motion No. 7 put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin which would require that a representation vote be taken among employees in a unit and so on. The member spoke briefly about this when he made his remarks. He thought it would be a breach of democracy if there were situations in which a union could be granted certification if there had been unfair labour practice.

I want to point out some of the legal arguments that the board has to take into consideration when it makes such a rare ruling as granting automatic certification. Really what it hinges on is the board being satisfied that it is not possible to determine the true wishes of the employees because there has been interference. In that situation it will grant certification. It will give the employees the benefit of the doubt. Again, the board will only do that if the employees have demonstrated that without that interference the application for certification would actually have gone through.

In the actual case histories where this has happened, union representatives have had to show that they were well on their way to signing up enough cards, that they were getting close to a majority. Then the onus was on the union or the representative of the workers to prove that there was interference to such a degree that holding a vote would have been irrelevant because the whole situation had been poisoned to the point where the true wishes of the employees would not be known by a free vote.

Another point that the member made was that the privacy of the ballot box, the sanctity of the voting booth, is a place where no interference can take place. The result of every organizing drive that I have been on was that the election was held at the place of work; in fact, in the offices of the employer. Every worker who wanted to vote on the issue had to march down a gauntlet, walk down a hallway where all the bosses stood in the doors to their offices with their arms folded and glared at them to the point where we filed complaints. It has been very much a problem in some cases.

Interference happens even without speaking. There is psychological interference. It is very difficult to walk past the person who has control over your economic destiny and do something that person does not want you to do. Most employers do not want a union in their workplace.

I disagree that there is no interference possible when it is a secret ballot vote.

The member made the point that he did not think if union representatives got 35% of the cards signed they should get a vote. I think that is wrong. I think if 35% is indicated there is a sufficient amount of support to test it. If certification is not granted at 35%, then there will be a vote supervised by the labour board. That is very fair, in my estimation.

If over 50% of the cards are signed, the board will say that a vote is not necessary, majority support has been demonstrated and it should go ahead.

My argument is that it actually takes more of a conscious effort to sign a union card. Those cards have to be written very specifically to say the undersigned wants this particular bargaining agent to represent them in all matters dealing with terms and conditions, wages, et cetera. They have to read it, sign that they have read it, dig in their pocket and hand over $5. They have to consciously indicate that they want the union to represent them. It is actually more meaningful in my mind than walking into a ballot box, seeing yea or nay and putting an x on it.

Having 35% of the cards signed is very meaningful to me. It indicates a level of support that deserves to be tested with a vote. If there is 50% plus one, then the people have spoken.

Motion No. 7 asks for a vote in all cases. Even if the union manages to show that 100% of the cards have been signed, according to this motion a vote would still have to be conducted. People would be asked to vote twice on the same thing. How many times are votes to be held? Until they get the answer they want? Will people be made to vote over and over again until the desired effect is achieved and they can finally cap it off? That would be patently unfair. If majority support can be indicated, that should be satisfactory.

Automatic certification is an aspect of fairness which we are trying to achieve, as per the Sims task force and as per the whole substance of Bill C-19. We are trying to create a balance. We are trying to provide people with access to representation without fear of coercion, intimidation or the misuse of the historic imbalance in the power relationship that has always existed between employers and employees. We are seeking to level that playing field, at least for matters of labour relations, to make the two parties more equal. They will not be afraid of each other because they will have this equalizing legislation.

Bill C-19 does not put too much power in the hands of working people and unions. All other matters are still the exclusive right of management. Every collective agreement has a management rights clause which states that management has the exclusive right to dictate the means of production, the hours of work, et cetera. That is an aspect of every part of labour management relations. We are only talking about fairness in terms of access to representation if the people want it.

There is nothing threatening in Bill C-19, nor in the amendments dealing with certification. Adopting Motion No. 7 would be a huge step backwards in terms of allowing people to make their own choice on whether or not they want representation.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are on Government Orders which has to do with government business. This is a bill the government wants to put through. We happen to support it, but that it beside the point. The point is that it is the government's responsibility to get its legislation through. The purpose of quorum calls is not to have people poke their noses through the curtain and then leave. The idea is to keep a quorum so that when people are speaking to legislation they are actually speaking to somebody on the government side, so I would call quorum one more time.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We have a call for quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

There is a quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for West Kootenay—Okanagan.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are so few people listening to this debate that it would be a shame not to allow me to wait until the few members who are present are actually listening.

It seems that even when the Liberals are present they do not choose to listen. That is a lot of the problem.

The hon. member for Guelph—Wellington rose on a point of order earlier with regard to quorum calls and suggested the numerical values of what is on her side of the House versus this side of the House showed how wonderful the Liberals were.

As pointed out by the NDP member who just rose on a point of order, it is not up to the opposition to supply people for quorum calls when it is the government's bill that it is trying to put through—