Mr. Speaker, I am sure the viewing audience at home this afternoon appreciates that explanation. It is sort of similar to groundhog day. As long as there is a shadow showing you are considered to be in the Chamber and participating in the debate.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. She has been present throughout the day, diligently taking notes, I am sure, as individual members of the opposition have actually addressed the amendments that have been put forward.
As I address this amendment that deals with democracy, a fundamental premise for the entire nation, and the fact that the will of the majority is supreme, I am reminded of the dilemma that faced our nation during the most recent Quebec referendum and how the official opposition and opposition members tried to get the Prime Minister of the country and the government of the day to state what they considered to be a strong enough no vote. Was it 50% plus one, or was it something else? The Prime Minister never clearly said what he would consider to be a strong no vote or a legitimate yes vote. Was it 50% plus one or not?
In the legislation we see that the government, when it suits its needs, is quite prepared to accept 35%. That is a problem. What we are saying is that if it is the will of a group of employees, then a secret ballot should be held. If it is the clear will of the majority of those employees that a union should represent their interests, then that is the way it should be. But if it is the will of the majority of those employees that they do not wish to be represented by a particular union that is trying to organize in their particular industry, then that should also be the determining factor in whether or not that union is actually certified.
I have some personal experience in this. One of the jobs I had as a young man many, many years ago was working for a company in the oil and gas industry in northeastern British Columbia, in the region of the country that I come from. At that time the company was called West Coast Transmission. It was in the business of transporting natural gas through a series of pipelines through northeastern British Columbia down to Vancouver and points south. There was quite a debate during my time of employment with that company about whether the needs of the employees of West Coast Transmission could be better met through representation by a union. It never actually came to a vote because it was very clear that the majority of those employees, after some very careful deliberation, ascertained that it was not in their best interests and they did not wish to be represented by a union.
There is a company in the small village of Taylor, which is in my riding, just south of my hometown of Fort St. John. It is a pulp and paper company that is non-unionized. Those employees felt they did not need the representation of a union.
Very clearly, with respect to this particular amendment, we see a need that democracy should reign supreme when it is time for workers to decide on who will or will not represent their best interests.