Debates of May 7th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for my colleagues. Obviously their conscience has been tricked. They have been stung by their own actions, and that is sad. I regret that very much but it was within their power to fix the problem instead of being cowed into voting the way they did, and I am sad for that.

Democracy is important in this place. We saw in the hepatitis C vote that the government set in stone a philosophy that is now reflected in Bill C-19 which is very regrettable.

Let us move on to Motion No. 30, an instance where the government could have stood up stronger in the name of democracy than it did, but here all kinds of conditions are placed on democracy. I do not think conditions should be placed on democracy.

Motion No. 30 deals with part of the labour code that would allow the 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 practice. Rather obviously, if the industrial relations board is concerned that there was some kind of unfair pressure being put on a particular group of workers, why would it not just ask them to hold another vote, a secret vote? Why not do that? Why not have another secret vote instead of leaving it to an appointed board to make that decision? Why not democracy? What is wrong with using democracy?

I recognize that democracy in this country is relatively new. In the modern world it is relatively new. It has only been around for about 300 years, but surely over the last 300 years we have come to be able to figure out how to utilize it in all kinds of institutions. Surely we should be able to figure out how to use it when it comes to dealing with employers and employees.

It is amazing that the government is proposing to grant to the Canada Industrial Relations Board this extraordinary arbitrary power to decide whether or not it will certify a union, irrespective of the will of the workers. That is ridiculous. That is not democracy, that is tyranny.

I point to a situation in Windsor, Ontario which occurred not that long ago. The labour relations board decided that the employer had used undue coercion on the workers and therefore overturned a vote that would have seen a union not come into being at a Wal-Mart store. Subsequent to that the employees moved for another vote to decertify that union. The initial vote was 151 to 43 not to have a union. The labour relations board said that they will have a union whether they like it or not.

That is the type of power that has been given to the industrial relations board. It is wrong. It is anti-democratic and it tells me a lot about this government. It tells me a lot about why backbenchers on the Liberal side voted against democracy, against the victims of hepatitis C and stood cowering behind their government. It think it is shameful and we will never support that type of legislation.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, our blood has been boiling on this side of the House and I am sure on the other side of the House as we listen to our colleague, the member from the Reform Party, pretending that he and his party support the workers of Canada.

Speaking about democracy, it was not long ago when the very same party had ejected one of its own just because she spoke her mind and because she said what she wanted to say. She was kicked out. It is ironic, speaking about democracy. These are the same members who when they came into this House told us and the public that they will allow each member of parliament to vote according to their conscience and as instructed by their constituents.

I have not yet, with the exception of a very few votes, seen the members over there stand up and vote according to their conscience or as instructed by their constituents. They all stand up like hordes of sheep and vote collectively. We rarely see those members stand up and vote according to their conscience. I have not seen that. Have other members seen that?

Speaking about democracy, there are two faces to democracy. There is the Reform face to democracy and there is the other face to democracy. Now they are concerned about the workers of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out to you that the House cannot continue to sit for lack of quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to mention that the member who called quorum call left the room immediately and he is still not in the room. There are no Tories at all in the room.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As the hon. member knows, we do not refer specifically to the presence or absence of members.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it ironic. Speaking about democracy and allowing people to express their views in a public forum, these are the very same guys who have been polarizing democracy. They wanted to call themselves fathers of democracy. They are not even distant cousins of democracy. They never heard—

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is referring to members on this side of the House as being guys and so on. My understanding—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Obviously this is not a point of order.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to put things in the context of Bill C-19, when we speak about democracy and the rights of people to express themselves in a free and democratic way. If we are truly concerned about the right of workers then we should be able to allow the workers to express themselves in a free way. If that is the case, the workers of Canada from coast to coast have told us that what is before us is a good step. It is a first step, it is an excellent step and it is something that is required and long overdue.

On this side of the House we have taken the initiative in order to respond to their needs. It is not an issue of a secret ballot or standing up and voting. Every day in the House we stand up. Compared to my colleagues on the other side, especially in the Reform Party, I am not afraid to express my views and say whether I am supporting a motion or not.

The notion of 35% is nothing short of trying to establish whether there is an interest in establishing a movement within a workplace. Once the employees establish their unions, once they certify themselves and become an organization, they can democratically, if they choose so, decertify themselves. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. The underlying thing in this debate for my colleagues in the Reform Party is that they are openly opposed to the right of workers to organize themselves. This is their true agenda.

I had an opportunity to listen to debates when public hearings were taking place. Frankly, I was ashamed to see that the level of debate had sunk so low. What do we call it? Is it sugar coated poison? This is absolutely terrible.

Those fellows have no idea what it is to be a member of an organization that defends the rights of workers. They do not believe in it. It is not in their philosophy. If it is up to them they will decertify every union or organization in the country.

We have a society that works. Employers and their employees, government, unions and corporations, work hand in hand in the best interest of the organization, of the government and of society as a whole. There is nothing wrong with it.

Germany is a perfect model. In Canada over the past 100 or so years our experience has not really been that bad. Unions have not bitten anybody's ears.

Why is there this agenda of being anti-workers? Why is it my colleagues in the Reform Party do not want to allow workers to organize themselves if they choose to do so? I do not know what they think. They think we do not know that. Of course we do.

They are trying to say that they are concerned about democracy. The bottom line of the agenda is anti-workers. Would members agree? My colleagues from Gatineau and Laval I am sure would agree that the agenda of the Reform is not to allow workers of Canada to organize themselves in a democratic fashion.

Let us not beat around the bush. They should stand one by one and say why they are anti-workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In compliance with the member's wish, I would love to respond by pointing out the error in what he is saying. We are the exact opposite.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

This is obviously a point of debate and not a point of order.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding. They are afraid of hearing the whole argument.

We are trying to enlighten them by saying that we live in a democracy. In a democracy the majority has the right to rule. If the workers of Canada want to organize themselves why do they want to stop them? At every single corner they try to block the people of Canada from—

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

Maybe this is Liberal democracy.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Liberal democracy; I am frustrated by the illogical argument of my colleagues on the other side. I want one of them to tell me why they are anti-workers. I will sit now.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss for words. I am glad to make this intervention, particularly with you in the chair, because I know you are always interested to hear what I have to say. You always listen very carefully unlike our friends on the other side. That is why we have to keep repeating ourselves. We are not breaking through yet, but we will; give it another three or four years and we will break through. We certainly will be making breakthroughs at the polls in the next election as hon. members on the other side know. That is why they are so afraid right now.

All the synapses over there are not firing. I am pretty sure that is the case because on the one hand the member says he believes in democracy and in the right of the majority to make a decision. On the other hand he does not, because the legislation does not provide for it.

While growing up I belonged to several unions. I belonged to the pulp and paper workers union when I worked in a pulp mill in Kitimat, British Columbia, in the mid-seventies. I belonged to the operating engineers as a heavy equipment operator during the 1970s and then I went on to become a part owner of a unionized construction company. We had signed agreements with the tunnel and rock workers, the teamsters, operating engineers and carpenters.

It is not like I am coming out of a vacuum on this matter. In my life experience I have had membership in a couple of different unions and have been part owner of a construction company which had collective agreements with unions.

There are companies that deserve unions. There are companies so badly run, badly managed and that care so little for their human resources there is only one course of action for the employees: to have a union to protect themselves. There are not many companies like that but they are there. I have seen them firsthand.

In the same vein there are also unions that are badly run and badly managed.

[An hon. member]

Which ones?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

The member did not ask me to name the companies that were like that. I do not know why he would be so interested in having the unions named.

Continuing my thought, noble or villainous attributes cannot be ascribed to humans based on their station in life. People are not good or bad because they are in a union. They are not good or bad because they are in management in a company. Everybody is different. Everybody is a human being. There are good people and bad people.

There are those in the union movement—and I have seen this firsthand—who would put the individual rights of people at a much lower level than the collective rights of a union. That is the problem. When the union becomes so powerful that it has a right to tell individual workers what they can and cannot do, I have a great deal of difficulty.

I also have a great deal of sympathy for people who find themselves in a position of not having the right to exercise their individual right to decide whether or not they want to be in a union or out, whether or not they want to have a union representing them. I also have a great deal of sympathy for people who are forced to accept a course of action when it is not what they want.

We are talking here about a fundamental collision between collective rights and individual rights. Obviously in society we have both. We have individual rights which are very important and we have collective rights which the union movement represents. There are other collectivities as we know.

My colleagues in the Reform Party and I are much more interested in individual rights than any other rights. We want to promote the idea that the individual is the most important unit in society, not collective rights but individual rights, to the greatest extent possible. This is the very essence of democracy. It is individual rights. It is the right of the individual to choose. It is the right of the individual to vote. It is the right of individuals to have control over their own destiny and their own life.

It is not difficult for me to see that the Liberals do not understand this basic concept of democracy based on their actions of the last few days. It is easy to see that the Prime Minister does not understand that the House of Commons is supposed to be about democracy. It is supposed to be about the right of individual MPs to come here and represent their constituents and to vote according to their conscience.

The Prime Minister said to his backbenchers that if they do not do his will they will pay the consequences. That is why people on the other side do not understand the fundamental flaw in the bill before us. They do not fully appreciate the fundamental concept of democracy.

I was in the finance committee this morning. I was helping my friend from Medicine Hat who is a permanent member of that committee. We were going through the budget implementation bill clause by clause. During the course of debate it became apparent that the opposition MPs on that committee were totally frustrated and had found that the committee was basically nothing more than a side show. From the time the Reform Party has had a presence on that committee, which is going back five years, not one opposition amendment to a budget implementation bill has ever been accepted by that committee.

We hear members on the government benches talk about the wonderful work of committees, how it is a non-partisan way of people getting together and working in a spirit of co-operation. That is just a load of hooey. I have never heard anything more ridiculous in my whole life.

Members on the government side do not want opposition members on committee to have any real influence or to have any real impact. No way. The committees in parliament are nothing more than an opportunity to occupy backbenchers and opposition MPs, to keep them out of the government's hair. This is the government's view of democracy.

It is also the government's view of democracy that the people in the other place should not be elected but should be appointed by the Prime Minister and that we should not even be able to raise this matter in the House of Commons. Is it democracy if I cannot as a member of parliament come to the House and talk about the other place because I might be offending somebody?

It is not difficult to understand that our friends on the other side have not grasped the meaning of democracy. They have not grasped the meaning of individual rights and how those two are intertwined and cannot be taken one from the other.

The legislation does not provide individuals their proper and full individual rights when it comes to whether or not a union should represent them and whether or not they should be required or forced to join a union.

I recognize there are companies that are badly managed and do not properly consider or care for the rights of their workers. They deserve to have and actually need to have unions to protect the interests of the employees.

Union leaders are not always the noble people they are made out to be. It is very important that individuals in every circumstance have the opportunity, the right, to decide whether or not to be in a union or to have union representation. That should be based on a secret ballot. It should be based on the majority in a secret ballot making that determination.

The bill clearly does not provide for that and the Reform amendment clearly would give workers that right. That is what this set of amendments is all about. I appreciate the indulgence of the House and I will let my colleagues carry on from here.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted a little clarity from the member of the Reform Party. He made some allegations about some private companies that were either abusive or not taking care of their employees the way they should. More important, he made some accusations about some unions, that some, not all, unions were not representing the membership but rather the collective bargaining units themselves.

It is very easy for the Reform member to speak in generalities, to be very vague and to pull these things out of the air. Would the member name one or two of these unions? If in fact it is true, all I would like is for him to name one or two of these unions that are not properly representing their workers. It is that simple.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey has a great deal of latitude in posing that question and has 10 minutes in which to pose the question because we are in debate and there are no questions and comments.

The Chair has allowed a fair degree of latitude regarding relevance, which is pretty evident to anyone paying attention to this debate today. As this latitude has been allowed on one side, it is obviously to be allowed on the other.

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey has another nine minutes in which to speak to the motions on the floor.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point was purely for clarification. There were some allegations made in this House and I simply wanted clarification on them.

I apologize for not standing and asking for a point of clarification rather than debate.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned that Reform members all do their act together. I do not know where he has been. Four times since this session began in September I have voted against my leader. We have the right and the freedom to do so. The hon. member knows very well that he never had that choice.

One of the things that young people learn at school is how to vote. When they have a vote, they count the ballots and then they elect somebody. That happens even in the elementary grades.

I want to deal with thinking that is terribly flawed. I want to say what the rest of Canadians think at times when they are deprived of their livelihood because of unbiased or unequal thinking toward an issue.

Motion No. 7 simply says that the Canada Labour Code “may”. It does not say they have to. It does not say they will. It says that they “may”.

In serving my time in various capacities and in various positions to which I have been elected, I have never in my life been subject to the concept that a vote of fewer than 50% will make the decision. I have never been introduced to that.

I have chaired hundreds of meetings. When a board has an opportunity to vote, the motion never carries unless it has 50% approval. I have been a CEO to a board and that board never came down with a decision unless 50% of the board was in agreement.

All we are asking is that Motion No. 7 be changed to indicate that the board “shall”. We do not believe for one minute, unlike members opposite, that 35% is good enough for union certification.

When government members talk about 35% they refer to management interference. What is management interference? We have labour on one side; we have management on the other. We never hear about labour interference. It is always management interference. We think it should be a balanced situation.

Canadians think that way. Ask the people across western Canada what they think about a handful of people being able to take away their livelihood. Members opposite say it is democracy and we say it is deplorable. We do not believe that 35% constitutes a majority.

The motion states that when 35% of the people have signed cards for certification they should cast a vote. When 35% have not signed cards for certification they should also cast a vote. All we are saying is that it should be equal. However, this government does not want to do that. It does not want to deal with the realities of percentage.

In my public life, for every single call I have had from an employee about manager interference, I have had 50 calls from employees talking about union interference. However, those members never talk about that. I am pro-democracy and that is what bothers these people. They do not want to look at a balanced scheme for employment.

In our committee work on transportation it has been absolutely enlightening in the last while to listen to how the railway companies have organized and streamlined the situation in Canada. When we talk about CN double-decking out of the port of Halifax and how it can beat the competition in the United States through Chicago, it does that with the co-operation of all the different unions along the way.

However, this is what happens. What is the largest petrochemical company in Canada? Imperial Oil. It has operated all of these years, with its largest plant being in Sarnia, without a union. I have talked to Imperial's people and they tell me they are satisfied and do not want a union. Why would anyone want to tell those people they must have a union with 35%?

Unless a 50% majority shows up, it is in violation of our democratic principles. No one in this House would allow a 50% vote.

The answer is very simple. Hon. members opposite are trying to move themselves into an outdated, undemocratic process of allowing less than 50% of the people to make a decision.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Shame on you.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, I am not ashamed to say that. I am very proud to say that I believe a democratic vote should be 50%-plus. Obviously the hon. member opposite does not and I hope everybody knows that. I hope everybody recognizes that when those members feel like it they decide that 35% will be control.

We in the Reform Party do not believe that. We believe they have a right to organize, to form a union and to form that union when their mandate states that 50% of them shall claim a union. However, the member does not believe that. That is too bad because that is where we stand. That is all we are asking for in this clause.

How can anyone dispute the fact that when 35% of the employees sign union cards there should be a vote to decide whether they will unionize? What is wrong with that? Obviously those members do not understand the principles of the democratic process that 50% or 51% makes the majority. They do not believe that and it is very difficult for us to understand.

However, if this government wants to pass the bill it is going to pass it anyway because it has determined that it is going to play into the hands of a very undemocratic situation. We do not believe that and that is where we differ and where we are going to continue to differ because we believe in democracy right across the board. We also believe in individual rights right across the board. We believe that a person has the right to vote on a secret ballot right across the board, but you people do not believe that. Go ahead and not believe it. That is your privilege. We are going to stay with the 50%.