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.