Debates of May 8th, 1998

Points Of Order

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When it is over it is over.

We will proceed now to the daily routine of business.

Order In Council Appointments

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House today, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made recently by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

Sahtu Dene And Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, two copies of the 1996-97 annual report of the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement.

Gwich'In Land Claim Agreement

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1996-97 annual report of the implementation committee of the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement.

Committees Of The House

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance pursuant to its order of reference dated March 31, 1998. Your committee has adopted Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 24, 1998, and has agreed to report it without amendments.

Petitions

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition from constituents of Victoria—Haliburton who are asking the government to remove the GST on all reading material.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be answering Question No. 80. .[Text]

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Could the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain: ( a ) what public tendering processes were used in the acquisition process for purchasing the M.V. Madeleine ; ( b ) how many passengers and cars this ship can carry; ( c ) how many passengers and cars this ship has carried since it came into service; and ( d ) what the annual subsidy is to keep this ship in service?

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

In so far as Public Works and Government Services Canada and Transport Canada are concerned:

(a) The operator, CTMA Traversier Ltée, identified the availability of a used vessel. There was no public tendering process. As has been the case in the past when it was in the best interest of the public to do so, Treasury Board of Canada has provided approval for the purchase of the M.V. Madeleine , then named M.V. Isle of Inisturk . In acquiring this vessel the Crown benefited from exceptional circumstances as a result of an offer from Irish Ferries Limited to sell the vessel to Canada.

(b) The M.V. Madeleine can carry over 1,000 passengers, 258 automobiles and 29 tractor trailers.

(c) The M.V. Madeleine entered into service on July 5, 1997. During its operating season (between July 5, 1997 and December 31, 1997) the ferry carried 51,790 passengers, 18,424 passenger vehicles and 1,393 commercial vehicles.

Note: The ferry service does not operate between late January and the end of March, depending on ice conditions. In addtion, the M.V. Madeleine underwent a scheduled refit between November 5 to December 5, 1997, during which time the M.V. Lucy Maud Montgomery carried out the M.V. Madeleine 's schedule service.

(d) The subsidy for the 1997 operating year was $2.4 million, which is equal to the amount of the previous year. Subsidy levels are expected to remain the same for the foreseeable future.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions stand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the parliamentary secretary answered a question today, but I would really like an answer to mine.

Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since October 3, 1997. I asked about the response yesterday and I intend to ask every day until we get the answer.

The parliamentary secretary has repeatedly promised the House that he will make inquiries as to when Question No. 21 will be answered. What are the results of his inquiries and when will Question No. 21 be answered?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note again Question No. 21. I have been looking into the matter and the question will be responded to as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed that the other questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House 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

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in debate on Bill C-19. The most controversial aspect of the examination of the Canada Labour Code is, without a doubt, the matter of replacement workers.

As we know, only two provinces have passed legislation at this time to restrict employers' use of replacement workers, or scabs as we call them in Abitibi, during work stoppages. Those two provinces are Quebec, where there have been restrictions since 1977, and British Columbia since 1993. Ontario had adopted similar mechanisms in 1993, but these were done away with in 1995.

Where sectors under federal jurisdiction are concerned, there have been numerous conflicts which have raised greater awareness of this issue, but to date the code contains no clauses banning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages.

The task force found that, despite the opposing points of view of labour and management, there was one point on which they both agreed, which was that “no one believes the use of replacement workers is justified if this is intended to do away with a union or to undermine its role, rather than to obtain an acceptable collective agreement”.

As the majority of the task force recommended, there will not be a blanket ban on the use of replacement workers. The Canada Labour Relations Board will, however, be empowered to order an employer to cease to use such workers during a strike—

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the hon. member for Abitibi is not addressing Group No. 2. He is speaking to a motion which will come up later in the debate, we hope, unless the Reform Party amends it.

He is totally out of order. Not that this is not interesting but it is totally out of order when we are supposed to be looking at Group No. 2.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières is quite correct that we are supposed to be debating the motions in Group No. 2. However, there has been a good deal of latitude during the course of this debate and it would be unfair of the Chair to be particularly restrictive to a particular member in light of the fact that there has been quite a bit latitude. Perhaps the member for Abitibi would be conscious of the remarks of the member for Trois-Rivières and every once in a while talk to the debate at hand just to keep us on track.

The Chair will endeavour to keep the debate more closely relative to the specific motions at hand. I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for bringing this to my attention.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your judgment and the comment by the member for Trois-Rivières. It is true, I did notice a certain latitude in the speeches since this morning. It is the only time today. We have until 1.30 p.m. It is true that we can speak about the motions in Group No. 2. If members want me to speak about the motions in Group No. 2, I have just done so.

The majority of task force members said they would not recommend a general ban on replacement workers during illegal work stoppages. Members did, however, recommend a certain number of amendments to the code so that these workers would not be used to reduce bargaining rights and so that the rights of workers in a bargaining unit who were on strike or locked out would be protected.

The adoption of these measures constitutes a balanced solution to the issue of replacement workers.

Why did I depart from the motions in Group No. 2. I did so because, during the last postal strike in 1997, the federal minister, the Liberal member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, decided, as the minister responsible for Canada Post, not to bring in strikebreakers, or scabs. That is the reality of a minister of action who, by his decision, helped workers.

We know that the words strikebreaker and scab do not have the same connotation in the other provinces. Nowadays, we speak about replacement workers.

What I wanted to say today, leaving aside the motions in Group No. 2, as the member for Trois-Rivières pointed out, is that, in November 1992, I introduced a bill in the House of Commons to amend the Canada Labour Code so as to prohibit strikebreakers. It was also intended to amend the Canada Labour Code in order to prevent crown corporations from resorting to strikebreakers during a dispute to maintain essential services.

For several years now, and this is important, Quebec's major labour organizations have been taking a civilized and responsible approach.

For the future of our workers in Canada, in Quebec, and in Abitibi, federal and provincial crown corporations should, in any general strike, follow the example of the federal minister, the Liberal member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who, during the last strike by Canada Post, introduced a general ban on employers bringing in other workers to replace striking employees.

Let us follow the example of this minister. Let us follow the example of Quebec.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the motions before us today. I am going to concentrate on two of the motions. Primarily I am going to talk about democracy and the democratic rights of labour union members and workers to choose their agents in order to basically have a say in what happens to them.

I think it might be illustrative for all the eager Liberals on the other side, those who really want to hear examples and facts, to tell them a bit of my own personal experience since I worked for many years in what would be called a compulsory union shop. That is rather remarkable since I am a professional mathematician. I taught at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. At the time when I started there was no union there. It was run by the provincial government directly as an arm of the department of advanced education. We had no union.

I remember that those were some of the finest years we had because we were able on very short notice to make adjustments to salaries and benefits as needed in order to attract qualified staff.

It happened a few years later that the provincial government on being pushed by certain numbers of people there allowed the formation of a union, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. Because we were run directly as an arm of the federal government, we were then forced into membership in the union. Preceding that all we had was a loose association. It was called the CSA, the civil service association.

The civil service association before the union was able to bring matters of concern to the employer. We did that at the local level at the institute and most of our grievances were dealt with fairly and quickly.

Along came the government giving its approval to the union and we then had a forced union membership. Instantly a number of things happened. Instead of having one boss, we now had two bosses. Instead of having quick and easy ways of adjusting our working conditions, salary and so on, it became a cumbersome legal thing.

In saying all this, I am not in any denigrating the unions or the union movement. As has been stated by a number of other people, there has been a number of very positive contributions made by the unions over the past number of years in this country and in other countries in improving the lot of workers. But there are some situations where a union shop just does not fit.

In our professional capacity there as instructors it did not fit. The reason I say this is we were not permitted to exercise our democratic rights. As a matter of fact, and this will come perhaps as a surprise to some members, I was actually for a time the president of the local of the union there. I got totally fed up with the union guys at headquarters telling us what we had to ask for and totally ignoring what our membership at our place of work wanted. It was very frustrating.

In expressing my frustrations against the union my colleagues said that's our man, and lo and behold they elected me and I was the president of the local because I was ready to stand up for democracy. I suppose I was a reformer before Reform was even invented. I thought the wishes of the people represented took precedence over the organization to which they belonged.

We were forced into the union and here I was a member of that union. I tried my best to represent our wishes. I was trying as much as possible to co-operate with our employer, with the administration of the place.

When occasion required it, on behalf of our members I made forceful representations in order to correct things that were not right. Most of my frustration was with the union. It would not listen. We had very inequitable treatment. We were taxed by the union about three times as much as the average for that union. We were about 10% of the total membership so it really did not have to worry about us.

We asked formally if we could get out of the union. We asked our employer, the department of advanced education, if we could form a professional association and represent ourselves. It was not even considered. It would not take it forward. It was so afraid that the union would then call a strike against the whole province and as a result it would tie everything up. The employer was totally intimated by the union.

When I say on one hand the unions have a positive role to play, one of those roles is not intimidation. One of those roles is not to hold everybody else hostage in order for them to promote their agenda. It must be done democratically.

Over a period of time there were some very interesting developments. In 1982 the province of Alberta decided to cut loose the technical institutes and the colleges from direct control and direct administration of the department. Instead they had new boards appointed. I will not get into a discussion of political patronage appointments at this stage. That is not on topic and I know I would be called on it on relevance. So I will not talk about that.

We were called on to choose our bargaining agent. There were at each of these institutes and colleges a number of instructors and teachers. We were called instructors where I worked. There were 750 instructors at the place where I worked and there were about 750 instructors at Southern Alberta Institute of Technology. There were a number of different locations with a large number of people. It is quite practical to have a collective agreement in situations like that. No problem there.

They asked if we should have the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees continue to represent us or should we go on our own. Having the board of governors come in gave us that window of opportunity to choose. Under the new legislation there was a choice for a new institution, a new organization for the members to choose.

We had a good debate. It was a great debate. I love a good substantive debate. I love one where all the members opposite are listening without heckling. I do not hear a voice of protest from any of them as I speak.

It really was a great window of opportunity and we discussed it. In the industrial area of our institute there was a greater favour to maintain a union. They thought it would have greater clout. The argument on the other side was that if we had our own association, free from the central office of the union, we could concentrate fully on what we were about at our institute. It was decided that we would have a vote. The vote that decided we would go on our own was as high as it had been on our previous straw votes where we had asked if we wanted to get out of the union.

All I am saying is that we were given the democratic right. There was a vote held. As I recall, 85% of the members of our staff said let us form our own association. I was then further honoured to be asked to be the founding president of the new staff association. I was there to organize it and put it all together. We had a great time representing our people. The key is that the people had the choice.

This bill before us denies the union members, the workers, that actual choice.

It states that if there is some external outfit such as the employment relations board it can say those people have a union whether they want it or not. That is not democratic and is a violation of the very principle of democracy. Therefore I speak very strongly against this bill as it is now stated and very strongly in favour of the Reform motions which will amend it and fix it up.

I see my time is up. Could I have unanimous consent to continue for a few more minutes?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know how unanimous consent can be denied without a quorum.