Debates of May 7th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair is interested in this but would be much more interested in the bill being debated.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get on course. It is very difficult when there are such ridiculous statements being made by the Liberals opposite.

I intend to address the motions in Group No. 2.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just went through an exercise of calling quorum and right away we have the government side disappearing again. I would like to call quorum again.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as soon as I can get their attention, I will carry on.

As I was saying, I intend to address specifically the motions in Group No. 2. What we are talking about in the motions in Group No. 2 are the powers and activities of the board.

I think it is appropriate, even though it is not in this group, that we talk about what kind of board we have to enforce these powers. If the make-up of the board is one way, then it may be more comfortable with a power. If the make-up is a different way—

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have quorum again.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the powers the board is going to have, particularly the ones contained in Group No. 2 of the motions now before the House.

When we talk in terms of the make-up of this board, the government wants to ensure the ability to put patronage appointments into this board.

The powers we are discussing in Group No. 2 are the kind of powers we are talking about, people who are put in there by patronage and not necessarily by merit.

I had a situation earlier during the first term of my office as MP where we needed a chair of the unemployment insurance commission board, the board of referees in my riding.

We felt this was very important because it meant not proper representation for the people who have problems in their riding. They had to go all the way to the Okanagan.

We suggested the names of three people to be chairs of boards. This will illustrate our concern under Group No. 2 regarding the make-up of this board. One was the campaign manager for the Conservative candidate, one was a non-Liberal and one was a person whose party affiliation we did not know.

We put their names in because we believed they would be good people. As it happened, we got no answer from the government on what it was going to do and the chair remained empty.

One day my assistant and my wife were at the local college speaking about politics. There also was the assistant campaign manager of the failed Liberal candidate for the riding.

He came to my assistant and said “I hear you are concerned about getting a chair appointed for the board of referees”. It is interesting that he would have that information because we only conveyed that to the government. He said “don't worry about it because I'm being appointed”. I raised that in the House and in the newspaper and made quite a fuss.

A reporter from the Vancouver Sun actually went to the riding and interviewed this individual. He told this individual that his member of parliament was questioning the fact that this was a patronage appointment and asked him how he would respond to that. He said “Of course it is patronage. What is wrong with that? How else would we attract people to our party?”

We do have a great concern about the make-up of this board and how it will be in a position to deal with some of the situations in this bill, particularly in Group No. 2.

Motion No. 6 deals with the potential streamlining of the board. We think that perhaps the Bloc's heart was in the right place when it wrote this but it is a bit of overkill. The Bloc is talking about having no ability whatsoever in relatively minor cases for the board to streamline things. We think it is appropriate. When people are waiting for the board to make a decision on a simple matter and fairly clear cut, we would like to think that the board can pick up the speed of things.

Motion No. 7 is a particularly interesting one because now we are talking about representation. By the sound of what the labour critic for the NDP said on this, I suggest that perhaps he has personal experience which has kind of poisoned his attitude to this process. He is talking about having to march down this line of hostile employers who have the power to read his mind. Why else would he feel threatened? He could have gone in with a big smile and given them a thumbs up. “Isn't that guy a good fellow. Obviously he is going to vote our way”. In other words, he feels they can read his mind and that is what is intimidating him.

Believe me, knowing the hon. member, I would be a little intimidated too if I were him and thought somebody could read my mind at times. I will not even go to the natural line of that out of respect for the hon. member. Even though our opinions differ, I do have some level of respect for him.

When we start talking in terms of votes, the member is saying 35% is good enough. I will bet the Bloc would love to pass this one. Imagine if the Bloc said “Wait a minute, if we can get popular support for this, in the next Quebec referendum we only need 35%”. If we go back to what the hon. member in the NDP said, it is really hard to sign people up. So 35% is good enough. Can anyone imagine what the Bloc would do with that?

Lucien Bouchard may be watching this debate today saying “If this government says 35% is enough, I think we will adopt it in the next referendum. If 35% of the population of Quebec votes to separate we're out of here”. Interesting.

The Liberals may want to think about that when they come to vote on that motion. Do they really want to say that 35% represents the majority?

During the Quebec referendum we heard some people over there suggesting that 50% is not even enough and that maybe it should be 60%. Do they really want to set a precedent that states that 35% is good enough? I really hope they will start thinking about that one.

On Motion No. 8 what we are really looking at is to have democracy, pure and simple. The hon. member from the NDP actually suggested there is no way employees could possibly have a fair vote and if they sign up 35% that is proof positive. He says there is no way they will ever get a fair vote because they are intimidated by the employer. He is perhaps forgetting the case with Wal-Mart where considerably less than 50% signed up. The union that wanted to sign them up said it was unfair management practice and it was interfered with. It demanded that there should be certification because it was interfered with.

The board looked at this and agreed and so it certified them. The employees did not want it and now they are seeking to have the union decertified. So much for the arguments from the hon. member.

I could go on considerably, as the House well knows, on individual parts of this. Comments made from the Liberal side alone could keep me going all day I am sure.

I want to reassure members that I will be back and that they will hear from me later today.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at Group No. 2, which contains four motions.

We are in favour of Motion No. 6 because we want to prevent the arbitrary appointment of replacements for representatives who have been duly appointed by their group.

Excuse me, I realize I made a mistake. I was in fact referring to Motion No. 8.

I want to focus particular attention on the two motions proposed by the hon. member of the Reform Party. In our opinion, Motion No. 7 allows strikebreakers to be used, in that they could vote for a bargaining unit, which we find excessive and unacceptable. We in the Bloc Quebecois are strenuously opposed to any use of strikebreakers, for reasons rooted in Quebec history. There is a consensus on this in Quebec. The use of scabs results in an escalation of violence and stirs up emotions. All manner of problems arise in a labour conflict when scab labour is brought in.

Still worse, what the Reform Party is proposing is for these scabs to have a right to vote. As well as replacing employees, they could take part in union decisions. This we find unacceptable. It is not clearly set out but the possibility is there and we are opposed to this.

Motion No. 30 refers to unfair labour practices by the employer. It weakens the importance of recognition of duly unionized workers and allows them to be replaced by people who are not accredited.

I am raising this point again to shed a more general light on this bill. In this House, two parties are opposed to the bill: the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. The other parties support it because, in their opinion, it is a series of compromises acceptable to labour and management.

However, the arguments on which the Bloc Quebecois' opposition is based relate mainly to the possible use of scabs, which is unacceptable in Quebec. Reform members on the other hand, probably because of the type of concerns in the region of Canada they represent, call for the existing rules to be relaxed. They are asking for greater freedom than that currently provided by the legislation and are opposed to the bill because they feel it goes too far. In our opinion, it does not go far enough.

If I may use an analogy, it is somewhat reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord. Quebeckers were faced with a proposal from all of Canada's first ministers, including the Quebec premier, who, rather surprisingly and paradoxically, had agreed to compromise. This compromise went so far that Quebec did not go for it.

At the other end of the country, people felt too much power was being given to Quebec.

This is not unusual in this House. There are two very important cultures and attitudes in this country. Compromise must be sought with respect to working conditions. Discussions around work issues are about people's livelihood and are much more down to earth than discussions about the Constitution as far as people are concerned, since they deal with their everyday labour relations.

However, we are dealing with two different cultures and views of the work world that are hard to reconcile. I shall attempt to demonstrate this today by outlining the rationale behind the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to the Reform Party's proposals. We believe that allowing scabs to vote on important issues in the place of unionized workers is unacceptable and that is why we are opposed to this practice.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the Group No. 2 motions before us at report stage of Bill C-19.

I am pleased to see you back in the chair, Mr. Speaker. I knew you would be pleased that I was speaking whilst on your watch.

I would like to follow up a little more on the points raised by the Reform member who spoke. It would be nice if we could call the members here by their names. I realize it is tradition that we have to call them by their riding names.

Something interesting happened to the New Zealand parliament when it switched to the MMP system of representation. Half of the members do not actually having ridings. They are selected on the basis of party lists. The house was faced with the problem of how to identify members when they cannot be called by a riding name. They dispensed completely with calling people by the ridings and now they call each other by their names. It raises the question why it was even necessary to have this tradition in the past anyway. But I digress as I tend to do, and I will get back to the point we were talking about.

A little earlier my colleague from the Kootenay area riding was talking about the 35% threshold for certifying a union. It really puzzles me how the NDP, which claims to be the New Democratic Party, can argue against democracy in this way.

I reinforce the argument of my colleague. How could you possibly take 35% to be representative of the majority? As my colleague mentioned, if the Bloc Quebecois had that rule for their Quebec referendum, especially if they could argue coercion, that people on the way to the polling booth to vote had to walk through an armada of no signs, they would automatically get certified for separation. It is totally ludicrous. If you have democracy you have democracy and that means a majority.

Perhaps the NDP support for such a concept is based on the fact that the workers have to compulsorily contribute to the NDP through their union dues. There are plenty of workers out there who do not want to do that.

The Wal-Mart affair in Ontario is certainly a good example of that. The Canada Industrial Relations Board in its wisdom certified the union when 151 of the Wal-Mart employees at the Windsor store voted against a union and 43 voted for it. How could a union possibly be certified under those circumstances? There were 151 against and 43 for a union and it was certified. Why? Because the CIRB made a random decision that the employer was unfair.

Now the workers are organizing to decertify. I would say that almost certainly indicates that their will has been absolutely defied by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It is absolutely appalling that those people on the CIRB would use their political bent, their ideology to force a decision upon unwilling workers.

We will certainly be watching the ongoing happenings with that particular decertification drive. I think it will show conclusively that workers want control of their own destiny. They do not want these sorts of undemocratic laws forced upon them.

Reform's Motion No. 30 would fix this problem of 35%. The bill as it stands allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to certify a union even if there is no evidence of majority support if the board believes there would have been support had it not been for the employer's unfair labour practices. That is a really subjective judgment.

The determination of what constitutes an unfair labour practice is left entirely up to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The Wal-Mart case as I said illustrates that. What we would like to see is that a union not be certified unless there is a secret ballot held and a majority of the workers have to support that idea of a union.

Motion No. 7 also proposed by the Reform Party deals with the Canada Labour Code which states that the board may, and I underline may, hold a representational vote on union certification to satisfy itself that the workers want the union. The word is “may” and we would like to see that as “must”.

Again, how can we possibly guarantee a democratic process if we do not allow people to vote? The same members in this House who want to certify unions with 35% with all sorts of arbitrary procedures would never ever agree to such procedures in their own ridings.

You can laugh, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine the situation in your own riding if that were to happen. You probably would not be sitting there today. All sorts of strange things could happen and you could be on the patronage bandwagon today, Mr. Speaker, looking for a position on the immigration and refugee board, or maybe on this Canada Industrial Relations Board. You would certainly deserve it, Mr. Speaker. You have been here long enough to prove that you are part of club Chrétien. I think you have earned enough membership points. You might even get to the Senate, I do not know.

In any event, in this group there are two Reform motions which obviously we support. There are two Bloc motions which we oppose. Members before me have indicated briefly why we would do that.

First the Bloc wants to delete the clause in the bill which allows the CIRB to make decisions without oral hearings in fairly straightforward cases. We think it clogs the system if there is too much process. Therefore we are not supporting that particular motion.

The other one proposed by the Bloc has to do with the common practice where a group of employers will join forces to have just one agent represent them in negotiations. The amendment from the Bloc removes the requirement that the board must satisfy itself that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity before revoking the appointment. The Bloc amendment provides for the automatic removal of the employer representative upon receipt of an application from one or more of the employers in the group and the appointment of a new representative.

We believe that there should be a vote of the majority of the members in this employer's group before such an action is taken. We really feel that the Bloc motion would weaken the employer's association position if they could just have one employer come along and the same sort of lack of process that we are talking about on the union side would suddenly be appearing on the employer side as well.

That deals with my comments on the Group No. 2 motions. I realize you probably need to take a break soon, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you are back in time for my speech on the Group No. 3 motions.

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

Mr. Speaker, many months have gone by. Much work has been done. Many speakers have been heard. A report called “Seeking a Balance” was even presented to the minister with many comments on how to make the Canada Labour Code fair for all parties involved, both labour and employers.

As we all know, federal labour jurisdiction encompasses some very important sectors of our economy, for example, interprovincial transportation, aeronautics, broadcasting, banks and shipping. The federal government also has jurisdiction over labour matters involving the federal public service. In all, federal labour legislation governs about 10% of the Canadian workforce.

This is the reason why we as legislators must make sure changes that will be made to part I of the Canada Labour Code are changes dated 1998 and not 1965. We must make sure that these changes serve today's and future generations of workers and employers.

In November 1996 Bill C-66 was introduced to parliament. It was rushed through the House of Commons like we expect the government will want to do with Bill C-19. Then as is the custom the Senate social affairs committee gave Bill C-66 careful consideration. PC senators outlined major flaws with the bill especially with respect to the privacy issue, replacement workers and certification as a remedy. This is the issue I wish to delve into at this time.

Here we are on May 7, 1998 speaking on many flaws that still exist and proposing solutions to these flaws. As the member of parliament for the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, elected democratically by the citizens of my great riding, I have a lot of difficulty with a clause which states: “The board may certify a trade union despite the lack of evidence of majority support”.

Having a sentence like this in a bill from a democratically elected House, the House of Commons of Canada, should certainly raise many eyebrows. Whatever happened to democracy? Mr. Speaker, do you think the Prime Minister is travelling too much to Cuba?

Clause 46 states that if the employer “has failed to comply with section 94 and the board is of the opinion that, but for the unfair labour practice, the trade union could reasonably have been expected to have had the support of a majority of the employees in the unit”.

What does the government consider to be unfair labour practice? Let me shed some light on the interpretation that was given to a clause much like the one before us now.

As stated previously by an hon. member, consider the case last winter in which a majority of 151 to 43 employees of Wal-Mart in Windsor voted against unionization. The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices and made them all join the steelworkers union.

What was the unfair labour practice? What big bad deed did the employer practice in? What action was so reprehensible that almost three-quarters of the employees voting against unionization had to be overturned?

Managers of the store when they were asked whether the store would close if it were unionized followed the legal advice they had received and refused to comment. They did not say anything. That was an unfair labour practice. What were they supposed to say? A yes would almost certainly have been judged to be intimidation but a no might well have led to a lawsuit had higher labour costs would in fact put the store out of business.

In the OLRB's view, the managers' refusal to answer was such a grievous violation of workers rights that it invalidated not only that vote but any future votes as well. Since the managers could not avoid unfair labour practice by saying yes, saying no, or saying nothing, it is reasonably clear that legislation of this sort draws its principal inspiration from Lewis Carroll. Following the Ontario decision, a similar situation was under way in British Columbia.

This shows how a bad decision can snowball. We should take a stand against this attempt to void a democratic vote on a mere whim. It is ridiculous.

During the 1997 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party promised to strengthen the protection conferred by labour laws on workers by increasing their democratic rights. We would have required a secret ballot with respect to matters involving union representation. It can therefore be argued that increasing workers' democratic rights includes respecting the wishes expressed in a secret ballot.

What is the point of holding a vote, if it can be overturned for any old reason? In support of my argument, I wish to refer to the conclusions of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which, as I said earlier, made an exhaustive study of Bill C-66.

In its report, the Senate committee wrote as follows:

Your committee has heard concerns that the provision in Clause 46 which would allow the Canada Industrial Relations Board to certify a trade union as a remedy for employer unfair labour practices, runs counter to the principle that certification should be based solely on the majority support of the employees in the bargaining unit. We strongly endorse the principle of majority support as a basis for certification and note that Bill C-66 retains the Board's authority to verify support by holding a representation vote in any case. We strongly recommend that the Board exercise the jurisdiction it has under section 29(1) of the Canada Labour Code and order a representation vote as a matter of course.

We believe that the concerns that have been expressed to the committee on this clause are serious and urge the utmost caution in applying this exceptional provision. Though a number of provincial labour statutes include similar provisions, they are used by provincial labour boards in rare cases, where an employer commits a serious unfair labour practice and where a representation vote is unlikely to provide a true measure of the employees' wishes.

We recommend, therefore, that in interpreting and applying Section 99.1, the Canada Industrial Relations Board should respect the findings of the Sims Task Force, namely, that this is an unusual remedy which should be reserved for “truly intolerable conduct” by an employer. Your committee has concerns about whether the recent use of a similar clause by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the Wal-Mart case is in fact an appropriate use of such a measure.

In its report, the Senate committee, the majority of whose members are Liberals, would probably have proposed an amendment deleting clause 46 if it had had the time.

I therefore hope that members of the House will support this amendment.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise because I certainly do not want it to be thought by anyone who supports Bill C-19 that I am in any way supportive of the filibuster the Reform Party is performing for us today with respect to Bill C-19.

Many things have been said that I think should not go unanswered. The debate on Bill C-19 which has gone on at various stages—and we are now at report stage—has shown the profound bias that exists in the Reform Party against labour unions, wage earners and their right to organize themselves collectively to defend their interests in the workplace and in the economy in general.

Even though I know a lot about the Reform Party, I have to say that I am shocked at the vehemence and the unfairness with which it advanced these arguments. For example, a Reform member talked about his objection to the notion that 35% of a workforce signing its cards would be sufficient to create a vote on whether or not to certify the union in that workplace.

The member did two things. First, he tried to give the impression that the 35% in and of itself was enough to certify the union. No one has ever said that and that is not what the bill says. For the member to try to give that impression, I do not know whether he is as dumb as a bag of hammers or whether he is trying to give a false impression to the House. The fact is that the bill is very clear that 35% is what causes a vote to be taken. Thirty-five per cent has never been regarded sufficient for certification in itself. It is very interesting the member would be so concerned about—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

They do not like what I am saying because they are desperately trying to change the subject over there.

It is very interesting the member would dump all over the notion that 35% is enough. This morning his leader had a press conference and announced the Reform new Canada act that has provision for a constitutional constituent assembly at which things would be decided about the constitution of the country. What would it take to cause this vote to take place at the constitutional constituent assembly? It would take 3% of eligible electoral voters, but when it comes to a union 35% is not enough. When it comes to a union, they will have to win the vote before they have the vote.

Who are we trying to kid? Only somebody who was profoundly anti-union could hold such a double standard that when it comes to unions 35% is not enough to cause a vote to take place but when it comes to the country 3% is enough.

I dare members to look back at all the proposals that have been made by individual Reform MPs and by the Reform Party as to what would be enough to cause a referendum to take place in various situations. I would bet that in none of those situations did they ask that it be 35% to cause a vote to be taken.

However, when it comes to unions, when it comes to working people, when it comes to wage earners having the opportunity to vote as to who will represent them in the workplace, the Reform Party has an entirely different standard. When it is a vote that Reformers want to take place, 3% will do, but when it comes to unions 35% is not enough. Let this double standard speak for itself.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise after the member who just spoke. That was a most interesting interpretation. I would like to read for his benefit the specific clause being debated and the amendment actually being proposed. The following is being proposed in government legislation:

29.(1) The Board may, 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.

The Reform Party is proposing to leave all that in place with one change, that is that the word “may” be changed to the word “shall”. That is the whole issue.

What in the world was this gentleman who just spoke talking about? What were those people over there clapping about? What were they all laughing about? They do not understand their own bill. It is unbelievable.

We have the NDP railing about things. What the NDP member was actually saying is in the bill. What is in the bill is what the government wants. All we want to do is to make sure that this democratic principle is observed. That is the issue. When will the NDP learn what the English language actually says? When will those hon. members recognize what they mean when legislation is put before the House?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. While I am sure the debate is very energetic, it is very difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member for Kelowna who has the floor. I am trying to listen, but it is exceedingly difficult to hear with all the enthusiastic debate going on in the Chamber. Perhaps we could have a little more order so that the hon. member for Kelowna could resume his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot hear for Reformers heckling their own member. I appreciate—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Speaker cannot hear for the noise in the Chamber and we will leave it at that.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful that we can have such a spirited discussion about democracy. It means that democracy works. It has a chance.

I would like to move to another point. It has to do with another proposal being made. It would amend subclause 16 (4.1) in the proposed legislation and reads:

On application of 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.

That is a very serious amendment. It says that one person may determine that someone should not represent them any more. It takes away any kind of secondary or objective evaluation of whether the individual representing a group is qualified to continue to be that representative.

It should not simply be one person's whim or fancy that allows someone to be taken out of a negotiation situation. All they might say is that they do not understand or they do not agree with him and as a consequence want him out of there.

There has to be some protection against the kind of arbitrary and fanciful thinking which the motion suggests. I would have to speak against it and suggest that there has to be a somewhat fairer system of doing it, a fairer process.

I will move to the third area I want to comment on concerning the business of changing one of the motions that has to do with the business of who may decide what is unfair labour practice.

The suggestion in the bill would read that the CIRB would be both judge and advocate. On the one hand, this board watches over the process and makes decisions about whether that is fair and whether it is going forward in the manner that it ought to proceed. Then if one of the parties is judged to be, in the opinion of the CIRB, unfair or engaging in unfair labour practices it is not totally impartial.

There was a commitment earlier in the process for them to work directly with these people. If now it states that they are being unfair in the kind of labour practices that they are engaging in they are in fact arguing against themselves.

I suggest that this very example took place in Ontario in the Wal-Mart case where the employees said they did not want to be certified. However, because somebody took the interpretation that management had engaged in unfair labour practices, we are now going to say they can certify. It totally denies the realization that a vast majority of these people did not want the union.

Members might say that was in the heat of the moment, emotions prevailed and there were unfair labour practices. However, members should notice what has happened since then. Recently we have the realization that the Windsor store alone voted 151 to 43 in favour of the union's being decertified. Is this not a clear indication that the earlier ruling by the CIRB was wrong?

There are three reasons why we should oppose these motions in Group No. 2. First, to recognize the business of having only one person to allow another person to be taken out of the negotiation procedure is wrong. We must oppose the proposal within the proposed legislation that the board may deny democracy to operator.

If we in this House want to be honest with each other and want to be a clear debating society, then we must agree that we should take whatever steps we can to assure that democracy takes place not only here but in all the agencies and in all the ways in which we negotiate disagreements or where we have differences of opinion. We must preserve that.

We must also preserve the judicial procedure at least in principle that allows fairness and equity to take place so that judge and advocate cannot exist at the same time and make arguments against that.

There is another point I want to raise which has to do with the democracy in this place. Could it be that the government of the day could actually take it into its consideration and agree that maybe there are times, even after it has gone through second reading and the committee process, that it could entertain, accept and agree to amendments in the legislation that make sense and that will guarantee the very fundamental issue on which this country was built, democracy.

If this government does nothing else, perhaps it could see it in its heart and in its mind to change that particular provision in the bill to say the board shall guarantee that democracy operates with those people who want a union or who do not want a union in a particular area. This has nothing to do with being pro or anti-union. It means people have a right to decide how they want to govern themselves and how they want their relationships with their employers to be obtained.

Surely it is in the heart of all of us to allow workers as well as anyone else to exercise and demonstrate their democratic rights.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to my colleague give such an eloquent speech. It is a real shame that there are not more here to hear that. When I look around the Chamber I realize there are fewer members than the required number for quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is a quorum.