Dale Johnston

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Red Deer for raising the points that he did. I would like to expand on what he said.

He was talking about the importance of the bill to international relations. I would like to take that from a more local perspective and to pose a question. How will passage of the bill help the average Canadian? Is the average Canadian even aware of it?

In order to do that we have to examine who the legislation affects directly. It affects about 10% of Canada's workforce, those people who work in federally regulated industries like transportation, communication and all workers in the Northwest Territories; in other words, about 700,000 of the Canadian workforce.

We must ask ourselves what is the impact of the bill on the average person in Canada. Specifically, will it improve things for the average person in Canada? Does the passage of the bill mean that there will be an improvement in for instance the mail service? No, it does not. It does not preclude any work stoppages such as the one we saw in mail service last winter. It has not improved those situations at all.

If we are to open up the industrial relations portion of the Canada Labour Code, why not address some of these problems that mean something to the average person in Canada? Every person in Canada at one point or another mails a letter or receives a letter. First class mail is a monopoly of the post office. How has the legislation improved mail service in Canada? The short answer is that it has not improved mail service in Canada.

Perhaps it has improved Canada's ability to be a reliable exporter of goods. Let us look at that. Canada has ports on both ends of the country, a huge country that has reliable salt water ports both on the west coast and east coast of the country. They are extremely important outlets to world markets.

Let us hope that the industrial relations portion of the bill has made some improvement here. As we examine the bill we have to ask ourselves what those improvements could possibly be. Would it mean that as a result of changes to the bill that Canadians can more easily get products to port, loaded on ships, out through the port and off to customers? No. As my colleague has pointed out, we still have the bottleneck problem of trying to get our goods through ports which with great regularity have some sort of work stoppages.

To be fair, it is not always a strike. Oftentimes it is a lockout. What difference does it make to the average person on the street who is affected by the overall economy of Canada, the impact of not being able to get our goods to port and on to world markets? I do not think we have improved that at all.

Why have we not? The only thing that I can see is that the government is unwilling to address the fact that we need to have some sort of dispute settlement mechanism if collective bargaining fails, and it has been failing; otherwise we would not have these work stoppages. It works in some cases but it seems like when things get critical the work stoppages occur right at the time when we need ports the most.

The work stoppages in the post office never occur during summer holidays. They always seem to occur around Christmas-time when the demand for the services of the post office is the greatest.

As well, work stoppages at the ports do not seem to happen in the spring when the farmers are busy seeding. They always seem to happen in the wintertime when the farmers are cleaning out their granaries, trying to market their crops. It affects a lot more people than just simply the farmers. It affects the people on the railways. It affects the people of Canada, in general, because lost sales have to be recovered somehow.

Canada is not the only producer of these products. Whether they are agricultural products, dehydrated alfalfa or potash, it does not matter. These are products that we have to get to market in order to maintain our businesses. As we are often told, and we concur, this is a great, prosperous country in which to live, but we have to pay attention to business. We simply cannot be in a position where we can lose market after market and maintain a buoyant position in the world.

When I say that this bill does not do anything to help the average Canadian, it could be asked: Why is the average Canadian not saying something? Why are they not up in arms? Why are they not telling us to make some improvements?

As I pointed out, this only affects about 10% of the Canadian workforce. The average Canadian is so busy trying to make a living and paying their taxes that they do not have time to worry about problems like this. That is the reason we are raising these problems today and trying to make some improvements to this bill.

We would like very much to see products, regardless of whether they originate at the farmgate, at the lumber mill, or at the mine, to be able to reach port through a dependable transportation system, to be loaded onto ships and to be carried to market.

This has a huge impact on the Canadian economy. Anything that has a large impact on the Canadian economy has a large impact on individual people who, at first glance, would say “That is the Canada Labour Code. That is industrial relations. I do not work for the federal government. It has no effect on me”. But it does. It affects every person in Canada.

There are provisions in this bill which we consider to be less than democratic. There are provisions which would enable the Canada Industrial Labour Board to certify a union without a majority indicating they would like to belong to the union.

Of course we will hear from the NDP, and we have heard from the government, that it can only do that provided there is clear evidence before the board that the employer has used some sort of unfair labour tactics, as if implying that it is only the employer who can use pressure tactics on a group of people.

I submit that this is undemocratic. Certification of a union should take place by secret ballot. When a person goes into the polling booth to cast a ballot nobody can put pressure on that person. They have the security and the confidentiality of the secret ballot. That is how unions should be certified.

We have heard many times about how this legislation seeks a balance. I would submit that if it is fair to certify a union without a majority, it should be fine to de-certify a union without a majority.

Furthermore, I submit that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will have tremendous pressure put on it by union bosses to see every case brought before it as undermining the unions. Every case will be pled on that basis.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 7

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.

(2) Any person who was not an employee”

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the foregoing speakers both from the Bloc and from the government. As I look over the motions that form Group No. 1, I see that my colleague from the Bloc has moved that the human resources committee should be the screening process for committee members on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. While we believe that the minister should not have broad autocratic sweeping powers in this area to appoint simply whomever he or she would like as the member has alluded to, we would give mild support to at least seeing the resumés of potential members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Motion No. 2 presented by my colleagues from the Bloc suggests that the vice-chair and the chair should only be limited to one term. I know that the CLRB has had some bad experiences but in the case that we have gone through with the Canada Labour Relations Board we had a chairman that was appointed for a period of 10 years. A period of 10 years is far too long. As a matter of fact I made a representation to the Sims task force that the term should be limited to five years. That is a reflection in the bill which I very much support.

I do not think that limiting the term of the chair or the vice-chair to one term would have much merit. It may be a little difficult to find a person willing to take on the job. I do not see anything wrong with reappointing a very qualified person for a second five year term.

If my colleague from the Bloc is concerned about a patronage appointment, let us take the scenario that perhaps during the time of a chairman's appointment his term runs out and there is a new government or a new minister. That would allow twice as many opportunities for a patronage appointment than at the present time. I believe we would not support the Bloc's Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1.

The bill reduces the term of the members on the board from 10 years to five years and that is supportable. A 10-year appointment is far too long. The Bloc has suggested that it should be reduced even more to a period of three years. I do not believe this is necessary. A five year term is appropriate.

We have had cases that last for months. There have also been cases which are definitely not justified and which have lasted for more than two years.

We should be able to agree that a five year term is a proper length of appointment. I cannot understand the rationale behind my colleague's suggestion that they only be appointed for three years at a time.

It would help with continuity if the terms were staggered. If everyone were to be replaced at once and all the terms expired at the same time, there would be a completely new board at some point in time. If the terms were staggered there would be some experienced members and some not so experienced members. That would certainly help with continuity on the board.

The Bloc's Motion No. 4 provides that when the office of the chair is vacant, the members of the board shall determine who the chairman shall be. That is not a bad system of selecting a chairman. When I was on municipal council the reeve of the municipality was selected in that way. When you ran for a position on council, you did not run for the position of reeve. You were selected from among your peers. That is not too bad of a provision.

I would like to hear more rationale from my colleagues in the Bloc as far as defending their positions. They have only given us cursory rationale as to why they believe we should support their position. I would like to hear more on their position as far as the Canada Industrial Relations Board is concerned.

It is our hope that the government is going to keep a closer eye on the operations of the Canada Industrial Relations Board than it did on the Canada Labour Relations Board. Aside from the very well publicized and documented misuse of public funds which took place within the previous board, there is also the fact that there are cases which have been before the board for more than two years. That is ridiculous. We all in the Chamber are familiar with the phrase that justice delayed is justice denied. That applies in this instance.

There is another thing which certainly has not helped in any way to build up the name of the previous board. It seems that they could not decide on anything among themselves as far as the governing of themselves. The first thing a quasi-judicial board should note is that it must learn to govern itself. What I am talking about is that it managed to rack up something like $250,000 worth of legal costs in internal squabbling in regard to who had what jurisdiction and who had what authority. That is totally unacceptable.

The department, the committee and the House of Commons should have a better handle on what is happening in the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We should be notified as to its operations. We should have a regular report to which the committee, parliament, Canadians and the press can react.

I know we can say that the auditor general has oversight of this entire situation and he does. The auditor general raised this problem time and time again. It was only after much to do was raised by the Reform Party and by the press that these problems in the Canada Labour Relations Board were addressed. We are very sorry that it took so long for these problems to be addressed. We hope that it does not happen like that in the future.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Perhaps then, it would be in order to ask whether the Speaker sees a quorum in the House.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with such a good speech as this being given that the minister should be on hand to take note.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

At page 145 of Beauchesne's, on June 16, 1963, “demagogue” was deemed to be an unparliamentary term. I would ask that the member withdraw that statement.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speaker and certainly I think he should read our motion. Our motion is not about asking or forcing people to put flags on their desks.

It is entirely about the ability to put a flag on one's desk if they so choose. I think if this debate were to be held anywhere else in the free world, it would be surprising. Our flag is welcome absolutely anywhere on foreign soil and it is just amazing to me that we are debating whether or not the Canadian flag can sit on members' desks if they so choose.

As has been pointed out over and over again today, we are certainly at liberty to wear a maple leaf lapel pin, one of which I am wearing today. I do not see any difference in that.

When the hon. member tries to infer that we are trying to make out that anyone who does not display a Canadian flag on his or her desk is less of a Canadian, I think he is completely off the mark.

I notice this period is known as questions and comments. Those are my comments.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening very intently to my colleague opposite and to his impassioned speech about patriotism and so forth.

It seems to me that when we impugn motives in this House that we should be censured. The member opposite has just accused us of practising demagoguery. I submit that that is impugning motives behind our motion today. The motion today is not about that.

[The Senate, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, in particular Albertans, will be forgiven if they are sceptical about yesterday's budget promises. Only those with short memories have forgotten the Prime Minister's 1990 commitment that “the Liberal government in two years will make the Senate elected”.

This same Liberal leader can now boast the longest unbroken string of Senate patronage appointments in history. It is time to cut that string. Albertans are tired of waiting and they are demanding the right to choose their senators. After all it is their tax dollars he has used to fund this $50 million a year patronage haven.

An Alberta senator has offered to resign his seat if the Prime Minister would appoint an elected senator. This mechanism is in place in Alberta and we can hold a vote as soon as there are municipal elections this fall. This Calgarian recognizes the need for an effective Senate and is willing to put his prized seat on the line.

When will the Prime Minister live up to his promise of an elected Senate?