Debates of May 7th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a feeling in the House that this is an important debate and that there should be some close attention paid. That sends a signal. We are now speaking on changes to the labour code. There are four motions in Group No. 2. I will make a few brief remarks to assist my colleagues in making a good decision with respect to these proposed amendments.

The first Bloc amendment states that the provision in the bill that allows the board to make decisions without oral hearings should be deleted. In other words, the board must hold oral hearings in every case before it makes a decision. On the face of this there could be some good arguments for saying that decisions should not be made without proper evidence being before the board. So it would not be palm tree justice but there would be some real evidence. There would be a balanced review of the evidence before making a decision.

The background of this provision in the bill would allow the board to make decisions not without evidence but with written rather than oral evidence. If after reviewing the written evidence the board feels that an oral hearing is necessary, it could proceed to that stage of the process. The debate on this amendment is whether the board should be required in all cases to receive oral evidence before it makes decisions or whether it can make decisions based only on written evidence in some cases. It was envisioned that this would be on minor issues although there would be nothing to keep the board from making major decisions without oral evidence.

There are arguments on both sides of the issue. At this stage it might be good to give the board the flexibility to make some procedural and minor decisions based simply on written evidence in order to expedite its proceedings and to make sure there is not a backlog or an administrative overload on the board. There could be a concern that the board might abuse that, that it might make decisions without receiving the proper evidence or allowing all the parties to have their say. If that is a real and substantial concern, then the Bloc's motion makes some sense. We need to weigh that carefully. As the parliamentary secretary is fond of saying, we need to come out with a balance on it.

The second amendment was put forward by the official opposition. It has caused some interesting fireworks in the House due to a misinterpretation of this amendment by one of the NDP members, a member who almost never makes that kind of mistake. I have the highest respect for that member and his logic process.

However, in this case the bill provides that if 35% of workers say that they want a representational vote, then the board may call a vote. Our amendment states that if 35% of workers want a representational vote, then the board shall call a vote. In other words, democracy shall work, not may work, if the board decides that workers get the great gift of getting to exercise democracy.

If the NDP feels that having to hold a representational vote with only 35% of members indicating they want certification is not democratic, that it should be 50%, I would very strongly support an amendment to raise the bar from 35% to 50%. I invite my friends in the NDP to make that amendment if they feel that there needs to be even stronger democracy in this provision.

At this point we would be content to say to workers that if a reasonable number want union certification then there will be a vote as to whether that will be put into place. If the NDP wants that number of workers to be raised then it can make an argument for doing that. At this point the issue is not the number of workers who want certification, it is the fact that even if some workers do want certification the board may or may not choose to allow them to make that decision. That totally flies in the face of democracy, which is something that the New Democrats I am sure would find absolutely repugnant. I know they will be strongly in support of this democratization amendment put forward by the official opposition.

In our country as far as I know, although I know some Liberal backbenchers would argue with me, we still have a democracy. I know that democracy is flouted and abused and repressed, sadly, in procedures of the House as we perceived recently, but it is still a principle that even the government pays some lip service to. I hope we would not be denying our workers the democratic traditions of our country, not stripping away their democratic rights and replacing their ability to make free and self-determining decisions and having their rights replaced by some appointed board which decides what is best for them.

Surely this dictatorship approach, this father knows best, this small group of elites knows best for the workers should be absolutely repugnant to every party in the House, most especially to the NDP. I expect that this amendment will pass very easily because of our fervent and deep commitment to the democratic process in this country.

The next motion is a Bloc motion which says that if there is a representative of employers, a group of employers, in bargaining negotiations and if even one employer from that group makes an application then the employer representative will be turfed and replaced by somebody else the board chooses. What the Bloc is essentially saying is that unless there is unanimity an employer representative is going to be toast.

We have to think through the implications of this. If there has to be unanimity on the part of the employers before someone can act on their behalf, then are we going to apply the same principle to workers and say there has to be unanimity among workers before a union can act on their behalf? If that is the case there would have to be 100% vote to validate the certification of a union to represent workers. Because the unanimity principle has been put into place for employers, in fairness the same principle should hold true for employees, for workers.

Is the Bloc saying that its unanimity principle is the one we want to go on in this respect? I do not think so. I think the democratic principle is based on a majority decision. Unless the block is saying there has to be unanimity across the board in the expression of who is going to represent both employers and employees, clearly it would be very inconsistent, very unfair and be a completely tilted playing field were we to support the Bloc motion. I appeal to my friends in the Bloc to consider how illogical this amendment is unless they are going to follow it up with the requirement of unanimity among workers before a union can be certified.

The last amendment is a Reform amendment. It essentially addresses the democracy principle as well, saying that we must get rid of the provision that the board can certify a union even if the workers say they do not want one, if the board says that there was an unfair labour practice. I do not have time to get into this. I know that many of my colleagues will speak eloquently and fervently on this.

Suffice it to say that if we really believe in democracy in this country we had better start putting our money where our mouth is in this kind of legislation.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-19 and the second group of amendments.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wetaskiwin for all the work that he has put into this matter before and during the committee debates that have been carrying on.

Today we are looking at different groups of amendments and we are now debating Group No. 2. The one I would like to dwell on is the democratic aspects of our amendment.

We need to make sure that democracy in this country can go through all aspects of our society. This bill states that the Canada Industrial Relations Board may order a representational vote on union certification. That is just not good enough. We would like to have our amendment brought forward which says that 35% of the employees need to sign a card indicating they want union certification.

There was a recent case in Ontario. A similar provision in the Ontario labour relations act imposes stricter requirements on automatic certification. Even under a stricter provision the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the recent Wal-Mart decision certified the steelworkers union as the bargaining agent for a group in a Wal-Mart store in Windsor despite the fact that 70% of the employees voted against the union. The board based its decision on membership evidence submitted by the steelworkers union which showed it had support of 44% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

It just goes to point out that if this bill is not treated properly, it can open up all kinds of strange parameters and undemocratic proceedings. The fact we would like to see 35% of employees cards signed would go a long way to stopping some of the problems that exist.

This bill and its predecessor, Bill C-66, are basically flawed for some of the reasons we are stating today. Stable labour relations are absolutely essential for this country to grow and to thrive, for people to invest in Canada and to reinvest. Companies that are looking to expand and to offer new services across Canada want stable labour relations so that they can count on their businesses being open and being able to supply Canadians with the services that they want.

With this whole entrepreneurial aspect of our country where a person can come up with a good idea, promote it, develop it and put it in place to service Canadians, it is necessary to have in place the labour to fulfil these aspirations. We would like to see amendments to the bill to allow that to happen.

The democratic aspect of what we are promoting in the Group No. 2 amendments is part of what we believe in. We know that the rest of the members of the House will develop their opinions and support us as well.

The Bloc has a motion that allows one or more employees in a group to appoint a new representative. That does not follow with what we would like to see done so we will be opposing that motion.

There are other items my colleague from Wetaskiwin has brought forward to show the weakness of this bill. One of them is access to offsite workers. We will be handling that at a later date.

We saw a couple of years ago during the winter that we could not for various reasons get our products to port, and once they got to port we could not get them out. This bill is to help relieve that situation. It guarantees that once a product or grain gets to port, it will be shipped. We have a whole lot of things to address in the labour act to enable those products to get from the farm gate or from the manufacturer's gate to the port.

As we go through the scenario of looking into the problems that existed two years ago that helped to almost bankrupt our agricultural community on the prairies, we have to make sure that we go back through every aspect of the labour act and put forth changes that will make it more acceptable and make it more friendly to the people who are shipping goods. That is why we have brought forward our amendments. We have to make sure that what happened in Windsor, Ontario cannot happen elsewhere.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board has also made some changes to how it is going to structure its chairs and the length of service. Many aspects here need to be looked at considerably. If we can start with our amendment that will keep this bill democratic and allow members of a union to have a representational vote of 35%, this will help alleviate one of the major obstacles and will fall into place with some of the other amendments we are proposing in the other groups.

This bill is going to have far reaching effects for years to come in Canada. It is important that it be democratic. It is important that it address the issues that are of concern in the labour industry. It is important to supply an atmosphere in Canada in which people will be confident in investing. It is important to the producers and manufacturers that when they have made a commitment to somebody offshore to deliver a product in a timely fashion that they are able to do it. If that cannot be done, our reputation is harmed. It is seriously affected and we lose that trust we have throughout the world.

I hope the rest of the House will support our amendments.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for getting the riding name right. I know how difficult it is for hon. Speakers to recognize 300 members, or 298 as the case may be, with the few who serve in your capacity. It is hard to remember all these riding names. Some of them are quite difficult to remember. I know that you struggle with mine from time to time so I do appreciate the fact that you got it right today.

It is a pleasure for me to address this very important piece of legislation. These report stage amendments to Bill C-19, amendments to the Canada Labour Code, were brought forward by members of the opposition parties. In speaking to this particular group of amendments, it is important to highlight one of the fundamental flaws found in this legislation, which a number of my colleagues and colleagues from other parties have been addressing today, and that is the clause which is very undemocratic.

We have heard some of the other members speak to the fact that a group of workers and employees could have union certification despite the wishes of the majority of those same employees. As some of my colleagues have stated over the past number of hours, that is a very serious breach in light of the fact that we supposedly live in a democratic country.

As some have said, we see in this particular Chamber from time to time that democracy is repressed or it is flouted and put down. The fact remains that we do live in a democratic country. For a government to bring forward these particular amendments to the Canada Labour Code which would see the wishes of a minority superimposed over those of the majority is clearly wrong.

I support the Reform Motion No. 7 which is included in Group No. 2. The legislation as it now exists says that the board, the CIRB, may order a representational vote on union certification to satisfy itself that the workers want the union. Our amendment calls for the board to hold a representational vote when 35% of the employees sign cards indicating that they want that union certification. That is a reasonable amendment.

I have risen so many times in the House both in the last parliament and in this parliament to speak to amendments that have been well thought out and put together in all sincerity by members from both sides of the House and by all four opposition parties. The amendments are brought forward to try to improve legislation either at the committee level or in the Chamber at report stage as we are doing today and as we have seen, we cannot even get a quorum from time to time.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure that it at least goes through a certain facade or charade of having a few members present—

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I know that you are in the middle of your talk. Of course you will be recognized first when we come back to debate. You still have six minutes to speak on this particular topic.

Because it is almost 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Port Colborne High School

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to congratulate my alma mater, Port Colborne High School, its students, staff and fellow alumni on its 75th anniversary.

To celebrate this historic occasion Port High is hosting a gala reunion this weekend. In many cases three generations of Port Colborne residents have studied at Port High and several thousand will return to this fine school to celebrate this auspicious occasion.

It is something we often take for granted in our country, that we have the finest system of education in the world. We educate so many young people, send them out into the changing global economy and global society to meet the challenges of their time. Academically, athletically and socially, Port High ranks first among equals.

The reunion is an opportunity to celebrate our friendships past and present, to celebrate our dedication to learning and especially to celebrate the teachers whose work has inspired and guided us and our young people. All the while we will commemorate 75 years of exemplary secondary education in Port Colborne.

Ad astra per ardua.

Young Offenders Act

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 331 days since the justice minister promised to reform the Young Offenders Act. Canadians want this minister to deliver on that promise, not procrastinate, evade and neglect. Public rallies are being held across the country to urge this minister to move.

In Calgary this Saturday, May 9 at 2.15 p.m. concerned citizens will gather at the Court of Queen's Bench and then will parade to the McDougall Centre to express their views on changes to the Young Offenders Act.

I urge all Calgarians and citizens across southern Alberta to attend this rally and support measures to improve the safety and security of all Canadians.

Sport Fishing

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to tell you about another excellent government initiative.

On May 2, the secretary of state responsible for Canada Economic Development announced a $1.4 million program, in co-operation with the Quebec government, for the voluntary buyback of the last commercial salmon fishing licences on the Lower North Shore. The federal government will contribute $700,000 under that program.

With this initiative, the Canadian and Quebec governments are following up on their commitment to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization to limit interception fishing as much as possible, so as to reduce its impact on migration corridors.

This initiative will also promote the development of sport fishing which, according to estimates, will generate annual economic benefits of about $2 million in the Lower North Shore region.

This shows once again that Canada is a country that works, contrary to what some may think, to their own detriment.

World Red Cross Day

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 8, is World Red Cross Day.

The Red Cross has been a pillar of civil society. It was instrumental in the signing of the convention on the elimination of antipersonnel mines by 122 countries, in Ottawa, last December.

In Oslo, back in September 1997 when the text of the convention was being worked out, I was privileged to have long discussions with Red Cross officials and with victims who benefited from that organization's help. One had to see the emotion with which these victims expressed their true and personal appreciation for this great community organization to understand the importance of its role.

There are close to 100 million land mines in the world. Each month—and I mean each month—these mines make 2,000 new victims. Given the new world order in which civil society is going to play a vital role, I wanted to mark the day celebrating the Red Cross, which is one of the great humanitarian institutions of the world.

Child Sexual Abuse

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Michael Coulis who has recently begun a cross-country bicycle tour to heighten awareness about the issue of child sexual abuse.

Michael is working in conjunction with Victims of Violence, a national charitable organization dedicated to the prevention of crimes against children and the improvement of the situation of victims of violent crime.

Mr. Coulis is himself a victim of childhood sexual abuse and has dedicated this trip to help curtail these crimes that have been characterized by their victims as a life sentence.

Reform shares Michael's concern about these victims and has long called for tougher sentences and a victim's bill of rights. I applaud Michael for his efforts.

I wish to point out that I currently have a votable private member's bill, Bill C-284, which is designed to better protect children from known sexual offenders. I encourage other members of this House to support my bill and offer some hope to Michael and others who share these legitimate concerns.

The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

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

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Hilda Bagnell of Louisbourg started working at National Sea Products in 1962 and stayed there until the industry collapsed. But on Friday, May 9, Mrs. Bagnell along with hundreds of others from Cape Breton and across Atlantic Canada will have their TAGS lifeline cut.

Across Cape Breton from Louisbourg, two fishermen were told last Wednesday night, the night before the annual lobster fishery opened, that their quotas had been slashed by 40%. The plant in Cheticamp will now only process 400,000 tonnes compared to over one million last year.

Imagine how we would feel if we received a 40% pay cut with no notice. Imagine working for nearly 40 years and then being abandoned by the government whose policies had cost you your job.

I invite people to come to Atlantic Canada. I will show them the devastation caused by these unthinking, unfeeling policies. Then perhaps this government will see TAGS—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

Volunteers

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Canada is paying particular tribute to the volunteers who worked so hard during the ice storm. I offer greetings to all those who are here today in the House.

Thousands of persons took action at the beginning of the year to help Quebeckers who were in the grip of one of Quebec's worst storms.

This tribute coincides with Emergency Preparedness Week, which reminds us of the importance of preparing people and public bodies for this sort of catastrophe, which can arrive at any moment.

Today, however, these words suffice to express our thoughts on all those people, organizations and associations that worked together during the ice storm: thank you, thank you, thank you.

Canadian Skills Competition

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, next week Vancouver will host the 4th Canadian Skills Competition. This event will showcase skills of young Canadians from all our provinces and territories in 29 different trade and technology occupations.

These students and apprentices will compete in traditional fields such as brick laying and welding, as well as in areas such as desktop publishing, television and video production.

The Government of Canada recognizes that we need to encourage more young people to consider going into skilled trades and technology occupations. It is essential to the economic strength of this country.

That is why this competition is important. It salutes the excellence of young people who are going into these fields. It shows that Canada and its young people are ready to compete with modern skills in our changing economy.

Multiple Sclerosis Society Of Canada

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and May is MS awareness month.

Evelyn Gotlieb Opal and Harry Bell, along with Dr. Colin Russell of the Montreal Neurological Institute, founded the society to help thousands of Canadians and their families deal with the devastating impacts of MS.

In its 50 years the society has grown to become the foremost voluntary agency, and Canadian researchers are at the helm of the research effort into finding a cure and discovering innovative new drug therapies.

As one honorary Carnation Day chair, I urge Canadians to support volunteers across the country to raise money and awareness of MS and to support individuals and research.

Happy 50th anniversary, MS society. Keep up the great work.

Mother's Day

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I met my mother for the very first time on September 3, 1948. I cannot remember anything about that meeting, but somehow I knew she was nearby.

As I grew up I relied on her to clean my clothes, to cook my food and when things were not going so well I knew again she would always be nearby.

I remember the first bike she got me in Lakeside, Nova Scotia, even when we could not afford it. I remember her supporting me when I struggled through school. I remember her, again, always being there when I needed the wisdom and kind understanding of a mother.

One of my greatest Reform supporters in Chester Basin, Nova Scotia is, yes, you guessed it, my mother.

Today she is the queen of grandmothers to my children. She is the best friend of my wife. But to me she remains the kind mother I have always had.

On Sunday I wish my mother a very special Mother's Day and to all mothers who have done so much for their children and ask for nothing in return.

Quebec City

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I protest the decision of the Quebec City national capital commission, which wants to rewrite Canadian history from a separatist standpoint by ignoring, denying and twisting reality.

We all recall that Quebec City hosted meetings between the leaders of the allies in 1943 and in 1945. Present at the meetings were the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, the British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, and the Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King.

Today, the commission is going to unveil statues of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill in this connection, but it is giving no recognition to the Canadian Prime Minister. This is a distortion of history, and indirectly, a moral affront to our soldiers in the last world war.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an important event is taking place today in Quebec City: the commemoration of the 1943 and 1944 Quebec conferences. Quebec City was the host of these conferences where the leaders of the countries involved in a conflict of the magnitude of the second world war made decisions that would mark important turning points in history.

By unveiling two commemorative monuments of the Quebec conferences, that is, busts of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, we are marking an important event in world history. The leading role of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King must also be acknowledged, as well as the effort of all Canadian soldiers in support of allied forces in the second world war.

When we commemorate such important events in the history of Canada, I believe we should do so with unquestionable intellectual honesty and not indulge in petty—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

Composting Week

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, May 4 to May 10 is national composting week and this year's theme is “Composting, going back to our roots”.

Composting is simple to do. You just have to put all your organic waste in a bin, outside your house, and let time and nature do the work.

Even though it is that simple, only about 20% of households do it. Considering that a family generates some 225 kilograms of organic waste annually, and that one pound of such waste produces between and 4 and 10 cubic feet of methane, it only makes sense to start reducing greenhouse gases at home.

The efforts of amateur composters might save our planet from environmental deterioration.

I want to pay tribute to my father, Dr. Albert Alarie, who was a pioneer in this area, since he initiated composting in the scientific and municipal worlds, as early as in the 1950s. His work as an educator and an interpretive writer provided the foundation of all that is now being done in Quebec, in this area. We owe him the benefits that we are now reaping.

Hepatitis C

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the hon. Conservative member for Charlotte, on his vigilant pursuit of justice and proper compensation for all victims of hepatitis C. This government has shown contempt, not compassion, for the victims of hepatitis C.

My colleague's efforts have helped the victims believe that someone in Ottawa cares about their plight. While the Minister of Health spoke down to Canadians and declared that the file was closed, it was my colleague who spoke for Canadians, the victims and their families.

Conservatives have a history of doing the right thing for innocent victims. This week the Conservative government in Ontario came out in support of extending compensation to all victims. Federally it was the previous Conservative government that moved unilaterally in providing compensation to all victims of HIV tainted blood.

The Conservative member for Charlotte has been working on behalf of hepatitis C victims all across Canada, including in the riding of St. John's West, and for that we should all be grateful.

Renewable Energy

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, 350 experts are meeting in Montreal for an international conference on renewable energies. Delegates are looking at the latest technological developments in the field, as well as at policies encouraging the transition to renewable energies.

Delegates will note that the federal government has neither a specific policy nor an actual budget for the promotion of renewable energies. Worse yet, it is cutting its budgets for the few related research projects, such as the Tokamak facility in Varennes. Delegates will also note that this government is still trying to excuse its failure to act by claiming that additional studies are necessary.

But time is running out. Every day, 10 Canadians die prematurely because of the effects of air pollution, which could be controlled. The federal government must take action now in the areas over which it has jurisdiction in order to stop the coal-based production of electricity, improve the energy efficiency of vehicles and buildings, and promote public transportation.

The Economy

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Canada in general, Ontario in particular, and my own constituency of Niagara Falls are experiencing good economic times.

What I find fascinating, if not bizarre, is that the Ontario premier is trying to claim credit for most of the good news. I am quite sure he is fooling no one.

The Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a proud member, set things in motion with recommendations it gathered from across Canada. This, combined with the determination of the finance minister in holding inflation down, keeping interest rates low and balancing the budget for the first time in years, is the real reason for our recovery. All of this was accomplished in a caring way. There was no slashing or burning.

Ontario is a great place in which to live and do business, not because of Mike Harris but in spite of him.

Prostate Cancer

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, during the prostate cancer information session held here on the Hill, almost 80 men took PSA blood tests for prostate cancer.

I am pleased to announce that most of those men had levels below four. Unfortunately, three of our colleagues had levels above four, with the highest being in the range of 13, a level of significant concern.

Because of other commitments, some MPs who should have did not take the PSA test. However, prime ministers, party leaders, ministers and deputy ministers do not have immunity from prostate cancer.

In light of the results I have just given, I hope those who did not take the PSA test and who are above the age of 50 will now call their doctors and make an appointment to take the test, if not for themselves then for their families, their loved ones and their colleagues.

[The Speaker]

I notice that many of us are wearing the carnation for Multiple Sclerosis Day. It is a good idea that we do this.

Hepatitis C

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, why is it that whenever the Prime Minister is asked to work with the provinces, particularly on social issues, he turns it into a meanspirited squabble?

The Prime Minister tried to bully British Columbia on welfare reform; he attacked Alberta on health care reform; and now he is directing insults to the premiers who want to compensate victims of hepatitis C. He treats the premiers more shabbily than he treats his own backbenchers.

How is this proposed hepatitis C conference to succeed if this is the Prime Minister's approach?