Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House and not just ask questions but make further comments with reference to some of the questions I asked earlier.
The whole matter of unionization of labour law has to be challenged in a much more significant manner than what has been happening in the past. Every country in the developed world except for Canada and Australia, as I indicated earlier, has dropped compulsory unionization of its members and the forced payment of union dues. They have legislation, for the most part, to support that kind of a position. It actually is a protection of rights and freedoms of the individual.
It is funny that Canada has not embarked on this matter in a very substantial way. However, listening to the comments of the Bloc, the NDP and certainly the Liberals, since they are the ones who put the bill forward, there is no intention on the part of the government to proceed in that fashion. Yet the economics of it would indicate this is the direction our country should be going in its labour law.
Earlier I asked the Bloc member a question on the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms. I know it may not have a direct impact on the bill, but there is still a charter argument in the bill which I will get to in a moment.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides the following basic rights. Bloc members have been arguing for their province in this regard. It also applies to the rest of the country because we too have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees freedom of association as a fundamental freedom. That choice should be whether or not an individual would want to become part of a labour movement and be subject to its rules and regulations.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides these rights:
Every person has the right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedom without distinction, exclusion, or preference.
Section 13 states:
No one may in a judicial act stipulate a clause involving discrimination. Such a clause is deemed without effect.
It continues:
It is important to recognize that the “freedom of association” in section 2(d) includes freedom from compulsion to join a particular union on pain of losing one's job.
I have gone through Bill C-19 and have noted that a lot of emphasis is placed on the formation of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. It appears the Liberals like these particular types of boards. They actually take away the responsibility of the minister to address the major concerns that may arise within that portfolio. In this case the board is a quasi-judicial body. It is not unlike other quasi-judicial bodies the Liberal government likes setting up.
The board will be the final arbitrator or the final decision maker. There will be no recourse for employers if 35% or 40% of a shop's employees decides to unionize.
The Minister of Labour will wash his hands just like all other ministers do when they have nice quasi-judicial bodies set up in their portfolios. They say “No, fellow Canadians. It is a quasi-judicial body and is independent of any interference from the political arena”.
They have already made their neat little choices as far as who is going to sit on the board. Board members will make any decision they want and there will be no recourse for those who are unhappy. That is a travesty of justice.
Members are selected for the board. They do not even have to be Canadian citizens. They will be sitting almost like judges and making decisions that impact on those in the labour market. There should be some provision in the bill that board members at least be Canadian citizens. They will have the power to make the decisions much like judges do even though they will not necessarily have to follow the rules of evidence.
They will be making decisions on certification, for instance. If a trade union wants to certify, the board may grant it that certification in spite of the fact that there will not even be a majority. Again the employer will have very little to say about it. Or, the board, making a decision on behalf of an application by the union to determine what the employer is doing with off site workers who are not unionized, could be compelled to send a list of the names and addresses of the workers. That will be done without the consent of the employee, the off site worker.
That again goes far beyond the mandate any board should be given. I have seen some of the actions within unions when things heat up. They are possibly jeopardizing the security and safety of the individuals or their families. I do not think that is appropriate at all. If something did in fact happen, who will advocate on behalf of off site workers? Who? I do not know of anyone.
That in itself is a violation of privacy and a violation of the right of the off site worker to remain anonymous if necessary. No board should have the right to pass that information on to someone else.
In closing I would like to make a very brief comparison in the privacy area where information on the names and addresses of individuals will be freely passed on to a union representative and could jeopardize the security and safety of those people.
I point my finger at the Liberal government. It feels no compunction in releasing to the community the names of sexual violators that may be released from prison and jeopardize the security of children or people living in that community.
