Steve Mahoney

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from my home town for that question.

Bill C-19 is designed to deal with federal private sector unions. We are talking about the 700,000 men and women across Canada who come under that jurisdiction.

The steelworkers at Algoma, for example, would come under the provincial labour laws, but they meld together. Generally we will find that the provincial labour laws tend to work together in a positive way with this federal law. The amendment is levelling the playing field to make collective bargaining and organizing within the labour movement fair, and to give the proper information to all the men and women who would become organized within a new union.

It is a very positive bill that will help the labour movement and management work co-operatively.

[Trade, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

While Canada's international exports have grown by nearly 11% this decade, internal trade among the provinces has grown by only 2.8%. Governments have talked about this issue for years with little action.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the government will do to tear down Canada's internal trade barriers and stimulate interprovincial trade?

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is interpretation. I suggest it is interpretation for the convenience for the member opposite to adopt a position.

The bill is quite clear that if longshoremen go on strike there is still a requirement to load the grain. That is a recognition by this government of the importance of that aspect.

The minister has also said that we are not sticking our heads in the sand on this issue. We are prepared to look at it to make sure it works. There will be committee hearings in which people will have the opportunity to have input and make comments. If adjustments need to be made down the road, this government will make them. We are flexible. This is about creating a level, fair playing field of labour relations between unions and management.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of off site workers it is quite clear that the board can lay down the rules for making contacts. It even says that the most likely way would be through the mail. If there is a situation where an organizer is using unfair aggression or trying to intimidate, which happens from time to time, the board has the ability to put sanctions against the union and to charge it properly with unfair bargaining.

It is totally an overreaction. In the case of off site workers, the company can take the union information and pass it through its electronic system, e-mail. It is all about communication. Why would the company and the union not want to let them know what is going on?

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Excuse me. The member is suggesting my dad and those people were dishonest? I find that to be a repugnant comment from the member of the New Democratic Party.

It was quite the opposite. They were honest, dedicated and faithful to the people they worked for, the men and women who elected them.

I want to tell him something else. I believe it was in 1958. I was a fairly young boy and it was Christmas time. We had a large family. My mom and dad had 10 kids. They were both in labour quite often. There was a strike in district 6 which involved the cities of Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie. It was a big strike. It was a big issue.

My dad was the national director. I remember my family having some pretty good Christmases, but this one Christmas was particularly lean. My mother explained to me that my father was on strike pay and that it would be a difficult Christmas. Is that not interesting?

The member opposite says he would like to see some solutions that would avoid strikes. How about if the head of the union goes on strike pay when he or she leads their membership out on strike? That might make them change their minds. This is just an alternative idea that I throw out to the member.

The problem with final offer selection is that it works only in financial matters. There is a lot more involved in labour negotiations and labour relations than simply the $1.50 raise the member talked about. There are health and safety issues, conditions in the workplace and the term of the contract. There can be a lot of different issues put forward that simply will not fit in that neat little box that the Reform Party seems to want to wrap up labour relations into.

I heard a member asking if we would expect a police officer to stand by and watch a crime being committed because they were on strike. Everybody knows that the police and firefighters cannot strike. That is a given. That is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about in this bill is creating a level playing field where labour and management can sit down and negotiate. What are they negotiating? The workers, through their leadership, are negotiating with the only tool they have, their services. Their services are their product. They can go to management and tell it what their services are, that they are underpaid, conditions are bad, they are concerned about its health and safety track record and they want management to improve things.

Some people will say unions were important back in the 1930s and 1940s but they are not important today. I strongly disagree with that. I did not follow in my dad's footsteps in the labour movement. I went into business. I too have concerns when there are irresponsible strikes, which we have all seen. However, I also have concerns when there are companies that refuse to bargain in good faith.

What we are putting forward are a number of amendments that will bring some form of calm to the labour relations movement in this country and bring clarity to the ability to certify a union. What can possibly be wrong with saying to a new organizing union that it must get somewhere between 35% and 50% of the people to join its union and sign a card before a vote is ordered? If the union gets over 50%, which is not just a matter of submitting cards but a clear indication that men and women who have signed these cards want to form a union, then the board can certify a majority of the people who would be in the union or could call for a vote.

In some jurisdictions such as Ontario we have seen where some unions have said that there was going to be a vote no matter what. Even if 90% of the cards are signed, the union does not care because it is an automatic vote and it is a right of democracy. I understand the rationale behind that, but there are also a lot of problems in the federal area when that occurs simply because many of the jurisdictions we are talking about are right across the country.

When we talk about people who work in the airline industry they can come from all across the country. When they land in Montreal are we going to run up and get them to sign a card or cast a ballot as they leave the airplane and come down the ramp? It is very difficult. There must be more structure just because of the 700,000 men and women who work in the private sector regulated under the federal act. That is what this does.

I would also like to talk briefly about what I think is totally a red herring, the issue of giving out names and addresses to people who work off site.

We live in a different economy today. We see what is happening in the union movement. It is now trying to organize McDonald's, taxi companies and other service industries. In the case of the Canadian Auto Workers, only 25% of the membership of the CAW work in the automobile industry.

It is all over the map. Why? The union is a business. It is a thing called dues. When it gets those dues, it has more money. It has more money, it has more members. It has more members, it has more influence in this place and all legislatures. What is wrong with that? That is democracy. It is growing its business. Members would say it ties things up.

Am I out of time already?

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

The member asks what happened to me. Fundamentally, all the labour leaders today, particularly industrial labour leaders, are vice-presidents of the New Democratic Party. That was not the case in the days of Bill Mahoney. That was not the case in the days of Joe Morris. That was not the case in the days of Charlie Mallard. That was because they understood that it was their responsibility to represent the men and women who elected them at every level of government. If they walked into a meeting with John Diefenbaker, Mike Pearson or a Conservative provincial premier they knew that person automatically knew they were a vice-president of the party whose main goal in life was to destroy the government—

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I want to talk a bit about some of the issues the previous speaker touched on. I also want to talk about what is the role of government in the area of labour relations.

I suggest that, very important, the role of government is to try to establish a balanced and level playing field which has some fairness. We see that in provincial governments. We have seen it traditionally in the federal government.

When the hon. member opposite talks about final offer arbitration as being the panacea to labour unrest, I think he misses a number of key points.

I do not believe that responsible labour leaders want to lead their people on strike. They want to negotiate the best deal they can for the men and women in the rank and file. They know the hardship of going out on strike. Many have come up through the rank and file. They know the last thing they want to do is lead their people out on strike.

What the hon. member did not mention is that these labour leaders are elected. Indeed they are politicians. I know a bit about it because my father was one for 26 years, the national director of the United Steelworkers of America, a vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress and the chairman of the ICFTU in Brussels. He has had a bit of experience in the area of labour relations, as have I.

During my previous incarnation in the Ontario legislature I was the labour critic for the Liberal Party when Mr. Rae was in power. Believe me, there were a number of issues which came forward in that regime. It was a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

Members have talked about a number of issues. They have talked about replacement workers.

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the Reform member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who, just prior to the rant we witnessed by the member opposite, made what I thought was a very thoughtful and important speech about young people.

He spoke about his concern about young people, about children. He talked about having a two year old and a four year old at home and how he was concerned about their future. That is the exact reason why I asked the question some time ago of the Minister of Human Resources Development. I talked about what the government did in its first mandate and what it is continuing to do in this mandate as it relates to youth unemployment.

I too have children. They are not really children any more. They are 23, 25 and 27 years of age and in various stages of education and working. I see all three boys and a lot of their friends who come to our place. These young people today, who are the immediate resources that will be leading us in the near future, are very concerned about their future. They want to know about opportunities for advancement. They want to know about training opportunities.

In my riding of Mississauga West we are experiencing an unemployment rate that is a bit below the national average. It is about 12% for young people. That is way too high, even though it is lower than the national average.

My question has to do with my concern that I hope the minister will work with local community groups and boards of education that have put forward alternative proposals and with the private sector to implement programs that will create opportunities for young people.

Recently the minister approved a program known as Ice Youth. Ice Youth is a tripartite agreement between the private sector, a company in the business of building arenas; the board of education in Peel; and the government. These young people will be trained and given class b refrigeration licences. It will teach them about all the sophisticated equipment and everything necessary for working around an arena. In Canada that is a huge business and a terrific career opportunity, but it is a very small program.

I hope the minister will look at other programs like that one where we can involve our young people in working co-operatively with the private sector, the local municipality and the school boards to create new opportunities.

We have seen training programs in past governments designed to train people but no jobs tied to them at the end. Programs like the Ice Youth program and others I hope we will see approved following the budget of the Minister of Finance next week will be tied directly to jobs.

The private sector will take advantage of funds from the government to create economic growth by saying to a particular young person “We are going to train you in this field. We are going to give you a trade. We are going to give you skills. We are going to give you knowledge that will then be tied to a job”. What is the point of training someone and then having them sit at home with nothing to do?

I hope the parliamentary secretary can reassure me an my constituents—

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I stand corrected on the city the member was the mayor of. I have respect for the member and if she really is thumbing I will make sure to give her a lift.

I know this member was not part of the Mulroney days. I just find it incredible the legacy that was left, what we had to inherit in 1993.

If the members opposite would simply do a mea culpa and admit they were wrong, admit they ran a huge deficit then maybe they would have some credibility.

They will not admit the truth. They have no credibility whatsoever.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I believe in my heart that the Reform Party will never govern this country is it simply does not understand that you have to continue to govern. You have to invest in our young people.

I admit quite clearly that the debt must be attacked. Our finance minister has committed to that. We have put out what we believe is a balanced plan which says 50% of our surplus will go toward debt reduction that the member goes on about as well as selective tax relief.

At the same time, are we to simply shut the lights out and go home or are we to say to the Canadian youth that they are on their own? They need our support and we need to invest in our youth. That is what the millennium fund will do. It will invest in the education of the people who will run this country in the future.