Debates of May 7th, 1998

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard it directly from the member for Langley—Abbotsford while I was speaking.

[The Speaker]

I do not know that this is a question of privilege. The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford was mentioned by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. I hope we can settle this fairly quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the new member in this House is talking about, quite frankly.

I think the member should withdraw these comments. I do not recall saying anything like this.

[The Speaker]

We have one hon. member saying one thing and we have another hon. member saying another thing. Surely this is a debate. It is not a question of privilege and I want the matter settled right now.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to western Canada from May 20 to May 23, 1998 to gather information in relation to their study on the national passenger rail system.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to resume my presentation after the interruption for question period.

[An hon. member]

Get those insignificant things out of the way and get to the real things.

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

A member opposite is saying that we had to get something as insignificant as question period out of the way of my presentation. It is too bad it had to be interrupted. I am sure I would agree with the hon. member. The key, despite all the heckling from the opposite side, is that it is question period.

As we well know, after having been here close to five years, it certainly is not answer period. I think the people watching on television understand that now.

When I was interrupted by question period I was speaking about the need for democracy and specifically the need for democracy in Bill C-19. I was using a bit of a comparison about how even in this Chamber sometimes we do not see democracy.

In my remarks I was trying to assist those watching the debate at home to understand what all of these quorum calls mean. When there is government legislation before the House, the responsibility rests with the government to have its members present to listen to the debate, to the amendments, to the rationale behind them and to participate in the debate as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

In answer to the hon. member, I have been listening and unfortunately there is not much talk about the actual amendments. I am very interested in the points on the amendments. However, the Reform Party refuses to talk about the amendments. It talks about everything else but the amendments. Can we please get back—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair was not paying close attention at that specific time; however, the Chair does pay close attention to debate and I am sure that if the necessity to bring people back to the discussion at hand arises, you can count on this particular chair occupant to do so.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to prove my point, if you look around I do not think you will find a quorum in the House. We should have a quorum to listen to this speech and it should be the members of the government so they can enter into this debate in an intelligent fashion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a call for quorum.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

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

Mr. Speaker, just so that everyone, not only those in the Chamber but the viewers at home watching the proceedings on television this afternoon clearly understand, do the House rules stipulate that when there is a quorum call the individuals have to be seated in the Chamber, or is it enough just to poke your head in the curtains that surround the Chamber?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As members will know, this is not the first quorum call today. The rules on quorum calls have been carefully considered by chair occupants. If the Chair can see them, they are here. In answer to your question, if the Chair is able to see a member, that member is considered to be part of a quorum and the Chair occupant is considered to be one of the quorum.

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

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.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that at the time I rose previously on a point of order there was some confusion because a question of privilege had just been dealt with and I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to, in fact, raise the same incident as a point of order.

I would like to refer to citation 485 of Beauchesne's, especially subsection (3), which refers to unparliamentary language as language offending against the proprieties of the House.

Citation 486(1) goes on to refer to unparliamentary language as being injurious reflections uttered in debate against a particular member. I think there is no question that the comment to someone to speak English—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, the issue was raised as a question of privilege. It was dealt with as a question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that it was a point of debate, not a question of privilege.

The hon. member is bringing in a point of order through the back door. If it was not appropriate as a question of privilege, it is not appropriate as a point of order.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Speaker has ruled already on the question of privilege and the subsequent point of order.

What I am distressed about is that the government, the Chair having ruled on it, continues to raise this bogus point of order—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to change the subject. I am sure you are in tune with that thought process as well, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I find myself speaking on Bill C-19, the labour bill, which was also known as Bill C-66 in the last parliament. This time I am speaking on the second set of amendments. Earlier today I spoke on the first set of amendments and earlier this year I spoke on second reading of this bill, which is now at report stage.

This bill is all about industrial relations in the federal sector. One thing I know, and I think all Canadians upon reflection would know, is that when we are talking about people who belong to trade unions we are talking about average Canadians who reflect the demographics, the characteristics, the concerns and all the aspirations of average Canadians.

One of the things that distinguishes this country from many countries of the world is the fact that we all consider ourselves to be living in a democracy. That is an important principle that we must try to adhere to on each and every occasion when we can do so.

This is a very important piece of legislation because it deals with human endeavour. It deals with certification of unions. It deals with the negotiation process in the federal sector. It deals with a whole host of things. It deals with the ultimately very serious matter of who represents who. If that somehow becomes corrupted, if that somehow becomes usurped, or if that somehow becomes a set-up that is not representative, then we indeed have a major problem.

This legislation fails the basic tests of democracy.

There is something very essential here which deals with the whole question of secret ballot voting. It is not a requirement of this legislation.

There is another circumstance which deals with remedial certification and we have the circumstance where a breach by the employer would lead to automatic certification.

This is non-democratic. As an example, we are all here because we were elected. If any one of us had committed a minor breach of the Elections Act, would that mean that the person who we ran against would automatically win? We all know that is incorrect, not appropriate, not proper and does not occur. Why should it occur as a consequence of this legislation? It is totally inappropriate. It is non-democratic. This government should not be doing such a thing or allowing it to happen.

This bill eliminates the need for unions to report on their financial status. That is totally inappropriate. If we are going to have bodies representing a lot of people governed by public legislation, there should be a reporting mechanism. It is only right and proper not only for democratic purposes but also for accountability purposes. The government has an obligation to make that happen under this legislation.

The other thing I find highly dangerous in this legislation in a general way before I talk to the amendments is that there are provisions in the bill to allow the Minister of Labour to suspend collective bargaining and open tenders. This takes us right back to all of those things we want to avoid.

As I mentioned this morning, we want to do things that will reduce confrontation, not increase it. We want to do things that will prevent it if at all possible. We need to change that part of the package as well, for everyone, for the union membership, for management and for society at large. We need to bring a balance into this package. That balance is not there if the minister is going to have that kind of discretionary authority. It takes us back to where we do not want to be.

We talked about the fact that the board will be hand picked. We can make other comparisons. We know the problems inherent in our justice system as a consequence of parole board appointments and the inappropriateness of that. Those tend to slap us in the face. This one is a little more inconspicuous but it is still every bit as important in its own right.

These are leadership issues. We look to these boards for leadership from time to time. These are issues where the public has been sadly let down. These boards are expensive. They are expensive to run and to maintain. When they do not perform, the very people they are supposed to benefit are let down. The people who are supposed to benefit in essence are penalized. We must get this right.

In virtually every endeavour these days, it does not matter whether we are talking about the financial world or any other aspect of society, there are two competing pulls and tugs going on. There is a trend to globalization on the one hand and on the other is the necessity for action that involves local phenomena. One of the ways we can try and balance those two things and make it come together is to utilize federal institutions when there is no other appropriate mechanism. This is the appropriate mechanism and as a consequence it is so important that we get it right.

So many of the things I have described do not portend well in this bill on this front in order to accomplish the things we want to accomplish.

There are four motions grouped. Once again we are talking about Reform and Bloc amendments. The Reform motion is very supportable of course. The legislation as it is written now states that with the 35% of employees signing cards indicating they want union certification, the minister may order this. We are saying in tune with our basic commitment to democratic principles that the board must.

With that I will conclude my remarks.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. This bill has been hanging around for quite a while. I imagine the government is getting tired of hearing about it in the House of Commons and would like to have it moving forward.

Frankly the legislation is flawed. I think parties on all sides of the House have huge problems with it that I doubt very much it is going to get the speedy passage the government wants it to have.

We are addressing Group No. 2. There are a couple of specific motions I would like to address. They deal with the issue of democracy, as my friends have pointed out earlier.

Obviously in the House of Commons of all places we should be concerned about an issue like democracy. It is very ironic that we would be dealing with an issue of democracy in the wake of the hepatitis C vote here in the House of Commons.

Colleagues across the way had the chance to stand up for their constituents and exercise their democratic right in the House of Commons and actually support an opposition motion that would have provided compensation for the victims of hepatitis C who received hepatitis C because of negligence on the government's behalf. But they did not do that. They did not stand up when they could have despite the fact that many of them said they were going to do that and many of them said that they could make a difference in this place. They could have. They had the chance but they dropped the ball.

Now we see that same tenuous commitment to democracy in Bill C-19. I think that is a powerful reason to reject it.

Our party is trying to make some amendments. One of the motions we are moving is that under the current legislation the Canada Labour Code states that the board 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 at least 35% of the employees sign cards calling for union certification. That is what we are proposing.

We do not want this left up to the board to make those types of decisions. We want to make sure that workers have a voice in all of this. We believe that democracy if it stands for anything should be reflected in legislation like this in a very clear way, where we state clearly that we do believe in democracy and in this particular case we want a vote on an issue of union certification.

I point out that there is no guarantee under this legislation that people will be allowed a secret ballot which I find amazing. I find it amazing that we are proposing legislation that does not guarantee people the right to a secret ballot.

In this place when we elect the Speaker we do it by secret ballot. When we are chosen as legislators we are chosen by secret ballot. There are a thousand reasons for that, not the least of which is that people have the right to decide in private so that they do not have to appear before the scrutinizing eyes of their neighbours who in some cases may try to browbeat them to vote another way, or they do not want to fear consequences from people who have power over them if they do not vote in a particular way.

That applies when we are talking about labour unions as well. To me it is a fundamental right. I cannot understand it in a country where in the charter of rights and freedoms we go to great lengths to lay out fundamental freedoms including the right to democracy. Sadly somewhere in the charter I guess we were not specific enough and did not suggest that we needed to have democracy apply at every level including when it comes to votes for labour unions.

Now we are stuck with a piece of legislation like this which is reprehensible. I am disgusted with the Liberals across the way for not fighting for workers who in some cases will be coerced into voting a particular way because if they do not vote that way they will feel pressure from people who have sway over them.

That is wrong but it is not inconsistent with the Liberals' actions on the hepatitis C vote. We heard them say over and over again “we are going to stand up to the government, we are going to vote with the victims of hepatitis C”. But when it came to the crunch did they bail out in a hurry, did they cast their principles over the side in a hurry—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fail to understand what hepatitis C votes and Bill C-19 and I would ask—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motions being debated in Group No. 2 are Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30. They have to do with the voting and the representation on the board. They have to do with how the 35% is determined. I grant that it is a stretch. It is a long stretch, a very long stretch, but it is still there.