Debates of May 8th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the hon. member calling quorum?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cackling from across the aisle from our colleagues who do not seem to take too great an interest in this important debate about democracy in Canada.

I think the kind of procedural games the government plays is shameful. We just saw my hon. colleague from Elk Island try to extend his limited remarks on this very important bill and was denied by no one except some Liberal who poked his in from behind the curtain carrying a cup of coffee.

I do not know what has happened to the traditions of democratic debate and deliberation in this place but I do know what the government is intending to do with Bill C-19. It is attacking—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As a point of fact, that is not who denied unanimous consent. Let us try to keep the remarks elevated somewhat.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am doing just that and I hope my hon. colleagues in the government will keep their conduct in this place elevated. That is not what I see. It is not what I see in this bill and not what I see in the way they dismiss debate in this House. They know that what is introduced by a minister representing the bureaucrats in his departments is going to be passed regardless of what is said in this place, regardless of what they say, regardless of whether they sit in this place and debate bills on second reading or in clause by clause or in committee.

They know that in so far as democratic deliberation is concerned, this place has been turned into a joke by this and previous governments. I know that many of the members opposite, honourable members, confident people and people of integrity, sat in this place and debated bills like Bill C-19 when the previous Progressive Conservative government sat in a majority on the government side. They tried to debate things while in opposition and said the same things I am now as an opposition member, that the bureaucrats run the departments, they run the minister when it comes to Bill C-19, and the minister runs the backbench majority of this House.

Democracy is not working and it is not working in Bill C-19. Labour department bureaucrats have written a bill that overrides the fundamental principles of liberal democracy on which this country relies. They say that a hand picked group of patronage hacks who sit on the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, people of real integrity and principle like Ted Weatherill, will be able to determine whether workers are forced into a union against the will of as many as 70% of the members. That is what Bill C-19 at page 14 states.

It says the board may order a representational vote on union certification to satisfy itself that the workers want the union. They do not have to. They can certify the union themselves.

Who? Not the workers. Who? Not the members of parliament. Not democratically elected representatives, but hand picked, unaccountable, unelected, patronage appointees of the government. They have more power in this bill than do ordinary working Canadians. That is a disgrace.

I do not know how the members opposite—what members there are opposite—can support a bill that undermines the principle of democracy. All we are saying through Motion No. 7, through our effort to amend this section of the act is that yes, workers have the right to collectively bargain. Yes, they have the right to gather together and to enforce their rights and to negotiate their rights as a collective bargaining unit. Never should a union be imposed on individuals at a workplace unless they invite it upon themselves. That is called democracy.

Right here, what we are seeking to do through Motion No. 7 moved by my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin is:

That Bill C-19, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 14 with the following:

“13. Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the act are replaced by the following:

29.(1) The Board shall, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to whether employees in a unit wish to have a particular trade union represent them as their bargaining agent, order that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the unit where it is satisfied that at least thirty-five per cent of the employees in the unit are members of the trade unit applying for certification.

It is simple and it speaks for itself. I cannot understand why the government members opposite would not support it.

I look at the testimony that was brought before the human resources committee on this legislation. People like Mr. Clem Paul, president of the North Slave Metis Alliance said on this matter “The Metis do not want unionism forced on them because of the collective wishes of other groups in the workplace”. The Metis want to be free to join a union or not, according to the wishes of the individual. Imagine, freedom. Mr. Paul understands that but the labour minister, his bureaucrats and the backbenchers do not.

Mr. Paul went on to say “The choice of whether membership in a union benefits the worker should be the decision of each person who is free to make it for themselves. Restrictions on our freedom to benefit from opportunities coming available for the first time will harm us”. He is speaking of the Metis people becoming full partners in any groups of Canadian society. This is somebody whose people are struggling to get a leg up economically and they see the danger implicit in this bill.

Mr. John Keenan is vice-president of human resources at Falconbridge Limited, a major national mining company that has created thousands of good paying jobs in our economy. On this section of Bill C-19 he said that “unionized labour is a reality of working life. As long as there are equitable checks and balances in our system, the labour relations system, we can work in a harmonious fashion with our union colleagues”.

He went on to say “As it is now proposed, this section of the code will polarize labour-management relations and bring us back into the dark days of the 1950s and 1960s when labour relations were at a very low ebb in this country. We made a lot of progress and it is not appropriate to turn back the clock”. He also said that his company was not consulted on this bill.

Mr. Jim Utley is vice-president of human resources at Cominco, another major employer. He said on this section that “a secret ballot for all certification decisions would address these issues and ensure that employees are given an opportunity to express their views privately and without either the union or the employer looking over their shoulders”.

What is the problem with guaranteeing a right to a secret ballot, he asked, and so do I. He goes on to say “The process is the cornerstone of our democratic society, yet the proposed legislation expounds circumstances where this fundamental right is denied employees”.

The witnesses went on and on and on at the labour committee, at the human resources committee saying that this is an attack on democracy.

I ask my colleagues opposite why they do not accept the principle we are proposing in Motion No. 7. It is the principle of democracy, the principle that nobody should be coerced by the power of the state to give up some of their freedoms, to give up forced union dues unless they give their consent.

The principle that started small l liberal democracy was the principle of no taxation without representation, that people cannot be coerced by the power of the state to surrender the fruits of their labours, or to surrender some of their individual liberties unless they concur in that process.

Bill C-19 by refusing to require a secret ballot vote for certification with the support of the majority of members would do just that. It would force up to 70% of the people at a workplace into a union even though they expressed their clear and heartfelt objection.

This has happened. It happened under the rabid labour legislation introduced by the socialist parties, in Ontario under Bob Rae and in British Columbia under that maven of economic growth policy, that real democrat Glen Clark. Those two provinces had the same kind of provision where the provincial labour boards could certify a union even against the express wishes of the majority of the workers.

What has happened? In Windsor, Ontario the Wal-Mart employees voted 151 to 43 against union certification. But the Ontario Labour Relations Board hacks, appointed, unaccountable, unelected appointees, using Bob Rae's labour code said “Sorry. We do not like the outcome of this vote. We are going to force the 151 to accept what the 43 wanted”. That is not democracy. Neither was it democracy in B.C. when the workers at the Wal-Mart store in Nelson voted overwhelmingly against union certification and the B.C. relations board overturned that.

In closing I encourage hon. members opposite to stand up for the democracy they represent by having been elected to this place and let workers exercise it through a secret ballot in the workplace.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has turned into a very spirited debate. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me so quickly so I can get to the nub of this debate today and the things which concern me about Bill C-19.

As in a lot of bills there is a lot of material in Bill C-19 that is easy to support. The idea of a labour code for Canada is not a bad thing.

Obviously this bill is a revamp of what we already have and it is not a bad idea to update it. It did come in in the last parliament and the government had second thoughts about it and for some good reasons, which I will get into in a minute, decided to drop it from the Order Paper. Now a year later it has been brought back in this parliament. We have seen significant amendments proposed by the official opposition in committee and in the House to try to bring the balance we think is necessary in labour legislation.

I was in the logging industry for many years. In the logging industry in British Columbia if the company is of any size it likely means it is a unionized company. I have lived on both sides of that equation. I worked for a number of years when our company was not unionized. I was there during the unionization vote when the members voted to join the union. Without getting into any of the coercive nature that this bill talks about that the employers might enter into, I could give a tale of woe from the other side on that one.

Even so, the IWA is not a bad union to work with and we were happy to do so for many years. Even after we were unionized, even though I was in essence the employer with the ability to hire and fire, the union did not mind. I was a member of the union even then. The union did not seem to mind. It took my union dues and was quite happy to do that while I was on the workforce for many years. Eventually I went into full time management. I have seen it from all perspectives. In those perspectives it is important that the word balance in labour legislation be a key principle that we follow.

For example one of the amendments we proposed in committee involved the privacy of individuals as to whether or not they wanted their name to be released to a union when an organizing drive occurred. I would suggest there is a balance here.

The union I believe has a right to talk to individuals in the workplace, to put forward its proposals, tell workers why it thinks they should belong to a union and why the workforce should be unionized. That is a right unions have. One of our basic blue book principles is the right to organize, to strike peacefully and so on. That is a right workers need to have.

Balancing that though is also the right of workers to their privacy. In other words, should the employer have to give the names, addresses and phone numbers of workers to a union organizer? That should be the choice of the workers. It is an interesting word which the previous speaker used quite often, the word choice. They should have the choice. By all means they may be very interested in that information. They may say to the employer “Send them my name and address. I would like to hear from them”.

Many people have a different view. They say “That is my choice. I may want that, but if I do not want that, it is my right to say my name is not on the list. I do not want anybody telephoning me at home. I do not want them knocking on the door of my private dwelling. If they want to talk to me, they can see me at work because that is what this is all about”. That is their right.

That is balance between the rights of the organizer to organize as they should have and the rights of the employee, the prospective union member, to—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to speak to the idea of the relevancy of what the member is talking about. We are supposed to be talking about Group No. 2 which I believe is Motion Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30. Really, what the hon. member was talking about has no bearing whatsoever on Reform's motion or—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect he is speaking directly to Motion No. 7 which amends 29.1.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up by saying it is very relevant to Motion No. 7. I am trying to build the case in this debate that the idea of balance is brought in by our Motion No. 7. I use that as an example. We brought in an amendment and the government accepted it which I think that was good and very wise in that case. I would urge them again on this one, Motion No. 7 to get to the nub of this debate, which is to try to bring balance into it.

Do workers have the right to organize? A quote from our party's principles is that Canadian workers have the right to join unions, to organize, to strike peacefully. That is a basic democratic right in a free society. We say that is a right and it must be maintained. Now we get into the how to make this a balanced and fair procedure.

When my company was unionized many years ago it was a pretty straightforward process although I will not get into some of the shenanigans that went on. The process in essence was that union organizers did their best to convince employees they would be better off in the union.

It was kind of a strange twist at the time. I remember thinking it was so ironic. We had just sent our entire staff and their spouses on a free trip to Hawaii. Maybe that was coercion but what happened of course is that they used all kinds of tactics to organize. They will do that. Organizers have their own way of doing that. They convinced enough workers to go so they convinced them in a vote. People voted and they were able to go forward.

Did we go to the labour relations board and say this should not happen, that this was an injustice? We said we would have to adjust some of our things accordingly. They wanted to be paid on a scale and they asked us to remove all the bonuses. I could not understand it, never could and never will. We removed the bonus system and other stuff and they preferred it. That was the workers' choice. They made the choice and went ahead.

The choice is theirs and should be theirs in a secret ballot. There should be no way they have to stand up at a public meeting and ask if anyone dares to stand up against the motion and people cower in the background. Of course not. They should be able to say “I am going to go to the ballot box and make my vote. I either want to join the union or I do not”. It is their choice to make. By all means, that is the balance. That is the check and the balance in itself in the secret ballot box.

What this motion tries to correct is the error in the government legislation. The government can say “Only a third of the people voted for that but we think we know better than they do. We think we can read their minds, we are omniscient. We have that special power available only to government ministers and we can tell that they did not really mean it, so we will override their democratic choice and we will get them to join that union whether they like it or not”.

I wonder what would happen on the decertification side. What would the unions say if they said that only 35% voted to decertify but they could tell the rest of them did not really mean it? Sure they voted, it was a secret ballot, they put their minds around the issue and they made it up on their own, but really they are what? Are they children? They are not. These are adults making a choice in a free and democratic society. They should no more be decertified on a 35% vote than they should be certified.

It is a simple case. If the board said that it felt something coercive was going on, if it felt somebody was out of line in some way, then it should order another vote. It should say that it will not stand for whatever the activity might be. If the union is out of line by pressuring somebody or the employer threatens somebody, we can deal with that. That is illegal. You cannot coerce people on this. So we are going to deal with that activity and then we are going to order another vote. As a free society we have secret ballots and choice on so many issues. We should also have that choice to join or not to join a union.

This Reform motion tries to bring that balance into the legislation. There is a need for workers to make that choice and they have a right to know that choice will be respected when the ballots are counted. This balance is not in this legislation. The balance we propose under Motion No. 7 brings it back in.

I would love to talk about final offer binding arbitration and another way to balance conflicting interests but I will do that during debate on a further group of amendments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.