Bill C-377 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations provide financial information to the Minister for public disclosure.

Canada Labour Code

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to greet all the members of the House once again. I have the great honour and pleasure to rise on behalf of my party. Before broaching the more political aspect of this issue, I would like to salute my hon. colleague the minister, who is introducing her first bill. This is an important moment for her.

I really want to thank her for what she is doing, but I hope she will understand that she is wrong on that project.

I have respect for her, because we share the same experience. I have been a member of the National Assembly, which is the provincial legislature in Quebec. She has also been a member of a provincial legislature, in Manitoba. However, the point is that the hon. minister was a member of the provincial legislature under what party? It was the NDP. It is real proof, when we read the bill, that the roots are there, and it is all wrong for the people of Canada.

It is a sad day for some of the fundamental principles that we share in the House of Commons. This bill attacks the principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. Those are fundamental principles of democracy that were intrinsic in our two bills and, unfortunately, are being trampled on by Bill C-4 introduced by the Liberal government.

It is clear that this bill is the Liberal Party of Canada's way of thanking the union bosses for spending millions of dollars, without consulting their members, to fight the Conservative Party before the election campaign, when they were not subject to the restrictions on election expenses. Thus, this is a way of thanking the union leaders, but not Canadians.

Let us also remember that all of this is due to the work of the previous government. Our government introduced two private members' bills, which shows that it was open to letting its caucus participate in the democratic process. I am talking about Bill C-377, which has to do with accountability, and Bill C-525, which has to do with the democratic process and which became law. Bill C-4 directly attacks these two fundamental pillars, and we are going to demonstrate why it is a bad bill.

First, let us talk about the issue of democracy. Bill C-525 allowed for and even required a secret ballot for union certification. If ever the union members wanted to terminate their union certification, that also had to be done by secret ballot.

All members of this House were elected by secret ballot. Throughout our history, thousands of Canadians across the country have been elected and sat in the House because of the principle of the secret ballot. How can members of the House be against secret ballots? There is no better way to give unions even more authority than to give them the support of members through a secret ballot.

Here is what currently happens. Someone knocks on the worker's door, accompanied by three or four friends, and asks the worker if he wants to sign the sheet. The three or four friends may remember the brave man who chose not to sign the sheet. Is it not better to proceed by secret ballot? This calls for a much more extensive democratic process.

Yesterday, during question period, we questioned the Prime Minister about the union bosses who illegally financed the Liberal Party, which was recognized by Elections Canada. The Prime Minister replied that this was a response to our opposition to unions in Bill C-525, which was undemocratic. I have a lot of respect for the office of prime minister, but I still do not understand how a Canadian prime minister elected by secret ballot can find this undemocratic. I am sorry, but this is a fundamental principle that we must respect.

How can the Prime Minister say it is undemocratic when we vote by secret vote, when this guy was elected through a secret vote? How come?

What the minister is saying does not make sense, because she said there were no consultations. Stop right there. We held consultations. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance examined this issue, as did the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

How many parliamentary consultations did the government hold about this bill? None. They have a lot of nerve telling us something is undemocratic when they did not consult. For one thing, that is not true, and for another, they themselves did not do it.

Another disturbing thing about the bill is that the secret ballot principle exists in provincial legislatures in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. I see some folks over there who will probably say that I am a Quebec MP and that Quebec does not have it. They are right. However, in my previous life, when I was a provincial MNA, I introduced a bill about that. My idea never became a reality, unfortunately. We were not in power. I just want people to know that I am seeing things logically.

I also want to point out that when we look at all of this, the motivation behind it is that they want to protect union bosses' benefits. Those same union leaders are elected by secret ballot. Why should union leaders be elected by secret ballot if secret ballots are not allowed for union certification votes? According to the Prime Minister, that is undemocratic. This is illogical.

In fact, people spoke in favour of our bill. For instance, Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say:

As secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy, if the process is good enough to elect our politicians, it should be good enough to form a union.

If I understood correctly what the minister said earlier, she definitely did not consult Canadians. The 22,000 people she mentioned were all directly linked to the union movement. Speaking of the union movement, here is what Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada said on February 11, 2013:

...PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action.

What, then, is the problem with voting by secret ballot? Why does the Liberal Party have a problem with secret ballots? I look forward to hearing that. This debate has just begun, and dozens of people will be speaking on this. I would like the Liberals to explain to me why they are against secret ballots. It does not make sense, especially since we were elected to the House of Commons by secret ballot.

They also talk about the need for maintaining balance when it comes to labour relations. A union is formed and dissolved in exactly the same way. A secret ballot is the perfect balance. How can we and the NDP be against that? I know that the members across the way are democrats as well. That is why I say it is never too late to do the right thing and that they can fix this.

Fundamentally, a secret ballot makes the process a lot more credible. We have all heard horror stories about three or four bullies who knock on the door at 10 o'clock on a Sunday night and say sign here or else.

If people are able to vote their conscience in a voting booth and mark an “X” next to the yes or the no and then place their ballot in a box, as they do for so many things, such as electing us for example, then the problem is solved. I cannot wait to hear them explain why a secret ballot is undemocratic.

The other point concerns the issue of transparency. Bill C-377 is driven by this fundamental principle: transparency and accountability. All public bodies have rules requiring transparency and accountability. We MPs have them; departments have them; crown corporations have them; municipalities have them; the provincial and federal governments have them; and so do municipalities. Everyone has to be accountable, even charitable organizations. Then why impede the transparency and accountability of a union, which, need I remind members, is the only organization that taxes people without having the power to tax that belongs to the government?

I will explain. The Rand formula requires union members to accept a deduction from their wages in order to pay the union. We are not challenging this principle. Don't get me wrong on that. I do not want to be misquoted. We agree with this principle. We do not have a problem with that. However, the reality is that these people are accountable because the dues are mandatory.

Youri Chassin, of the Montreal Economic Institute, said that unions had a power to tax, which calls for much more transparency. All Canadians are affected by this, not just working Canadians, not just those who belong to unions, and not just those who are unionized.

This affects all Canadians because there is a tax credit for this. What kind of money are we talking about? We are not just talking about three or four dollars. We are talking about $500 million, half a billion dollars. Do my colleagues not think that unions should therefore be accountable to all Canadians? That is precisely the question.

Earlier, the minister said that everything was fine and that they are already accountable. That is not true. This affects all Canadians, and since they are paying $500 million for this tax credit, it makes sense that unions should be accountable to them. That is a fundamental principle. My colleagues agree with this.

I see some members starting to smile. You never know, we might end up convincing them.

The other important thing to remember in all this is that we are not alone. Canada is not an island. This is being done in other places, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and even France. Yes, even socialist France is doing it.

I am not talking about the Americans under George W. Bush. I am talking about socialist France requiring its unions to have transparency rules. The current minister, a former NDP MLA, cannot disagree with that. We shall see.

I spoke briefly about the requirements for charities. We are MPs and we spend our weekends working with charities. I am very proud of the fact that there are dozens of charitable organizations in my riding of Louis—Saint-Laurent that help the most vulnerable members of our society, whether it be the Knights of Columbus, Optimist Clubs, support groups, or La Luciole, which I spoke about here in the House last week to great applause from 335 members, including the Prime Minister. I am very proud of that.

Under the principles of transparency and accountability, these organizations must be held to account. Why flout that principle when it comes to unions? That does not make any sense.

As Air Canada flight attendant Marc Roumy said, the union would be stronger and more legitimate and would receive more support if it was more accountable.

Earlier the minister mentioned the theoretical possibility that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 could face court challenges. Has this been challenged? No, it has not been challenged. She was talking as though it would be the end of the world or things would not end well, but it has not been challenged.

We, however, consulted people, and even a former Supreme Court justice, the Hon. Michel Bastarache, gave evidence. What did he say? He said that this fell under federal jurisdiction because it was a taxation law, that it did not encroach on federal or provincial powers, and that it posed no problems with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The person who said all that was not just anyone; it was a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I do hope that the current government respects our right honourable justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. This former justice said that the bill was fine, that it passed the test.

I also have to wonder what the urgency is in all this. The bill was introduced and it passed. It was implemented for a few months. Where there any challenges? Did anyone take this matter to court? I will answer that myself, and the answer is no.

It is clear that the Liberal Party, with the support and assistance of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, rushed to pass this undemocratic law that is against transparency and accountability solely for partisan reasons and to thank the unions for spending millions of dollars fighting the Conservative Party. That makes no sense in a democracy.

Let us not forget that the biggest losers in all of this are ordinary workers, ordinary union members. The ones who work hard, who have families and who mind their own business and do not want to get involved in union issues and all that. They are the ones hurt by this bill because they will have a harder time getting access to information and there will be no democracy in their system, which we think should include secret ballots.

The government is doing this to thank big union bosses, and it has no respect for ordinary workers.

I am a guy from Quebec. I was a member of the National Assembly, and I can say that the infamous Charbonneau commission showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that unfortunately, unions bent the rules in some highly improper ways.

More transparency and more accountability is always good for democracy, and it is especially good for ordinary workers who pay their union dues.

Let me just say a few words in response to the address by the minister. She said it is quite important to have a real balance on this issue. She said that our government did not have balance on that. That is not true. We share the same balance on that in exactly the same way, to create a union and to dissemble a union in exactly the same way. That is really balanced. Now we are talking about balancing the subject, and we were for that.

The minister is talking about building a strong and robust economy with Bill C-4. We will see. I am not quite sure about this kind of activity, but what is good for the economy of Canada is to support good projects like the pipelines project. Now they should be good for the economy of Canada, not with this bill, but real projects for the private sector that are good for Canada, good for the economy, and good for Canadians.

The minister is talking about obligation and saying that the unions already have an obligation. So what is the deal? They already have an obligation to duplicate it, so what? Paste and copy, it is quite easy. If there is an obligation now, why is she against what we propose, because we share the same principles?

On Bill C-525, she said that it would be more difficult to dissemble a union. If the people, the workers, are happy with their union they will not want to dissemble it, but if they are against their bosses and think they will not be well defended by their leaders, this is an opportunity to do so by secret ballot.

She said that the former government was pro-business. What is the problem? Who creates jobs in this society? Is it the government? No. Is it the municipalities? No. Is it the provincial government? No. Who creates the real jobs? Business. Yes, we are proud to share the same principles.

However, more than that, who works in business? The workers. Men and women work hard. They rise up in the morning, work hard, get their wages, working hard for that, and we thank them for that.

We think of them when we read this bill. We think about the people who get up in the morning, work hard, and see their wages being used to finance unions. They want their money's worth.

We think of them because we think that wealth is created by private businesses, but we also believe that private business exists thanks to the support, assistance, and work of experienced Canadians who get up in the morning and earn their daily bread. We owe them our respect, but the legislation the government is proposing does not respect these workers.

In our opinion, it is clear that this bill cannot stand in its current form. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Foothills:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor: “this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, because the bill violates a fundamental principle of democracy by abolishing the provision whereby the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority”.

This bill makes no sense. Let us hope that the government drops it.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for introducing this bill in the House of Commons today. We can all agree that over the last number of months, we have had many people in our constituencies raise concerns about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and the fact that they were going to have a tremendous negative impact on unions and unionized workers in the country.

I would like to ask the minister today, as she moves this motion to make those bills redundant, if she thinks this was an attempt to break unions in this country and sever unionized workers.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I am pleased to participate in today's discussion on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Over 60% of workers in the riding of Jonquière are unionized.

My question is for my colleague. Why is there nothing in the bill about sick leave? That is unfortunate. We are currently negotiating with public servants. Are we going to include sick leave later and negotiate with public servants in good faith?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to be standing here today. This is my first opportunity to really give my maiden speech in the House, and I am thankful for the opportunity. I am pleased to be part of a government that is taking steps to restore the balance that is so important for positive working relationships between employees and employers. I also want to thank department officials, the hard-working team of public servants, who have supported the quick tabling of this important bill.

The legislation we are discussing today reflects a commitment made several times by the Prime Minister and this government, the commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country.

We believe that both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly in safe, healthy work environments.

Among other things, our labour laws help ensure that there is balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. The government respects unions and understands that they have been a positive force for the workers in Canada through collective bargaining.

Unions have improved the lives of not only their own members but all Canadians. They have negotiated several items that most workers take for granted, such as the five-day work week, and maternity and parental leave.

When the system works, Canadians benefit and great things happen. That is why unions must be on an equal footing in critical negotiations over wages, safety, pensions, and other workplace issues.

Two bills adopted during the last session of Parliament, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, upset that balance. We believe they must be repealed, and we are here today to do just that. We have tabled Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act. If passed, this bill will repeal the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. This would be a key first step toward restoring a fair and balanced approach to labour relations, and ultimately build a strong, robust economy, because unfortunately this balance was significantly upset by the political agenda of the previous government.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 have serious ramifications for workers and unions in Canada. Both of these were private members' bills. We do not doubt that the members presenting them intended to improve labour relationships. Unfortunately, the outcomes put unions at a clear disadvantage.

Let me start with Bill C-377. This bill amended the Income Tax Act to require labour organizations and labour trusts, including all unions in provincial and federal jurisdictions, to file detailed financial and other information, including information on non-labour relations activities, with the Canada Revenue Agency. The information contained in these returns would then be made available on CRA's website thereby publicly revealing these organizations' assets, liabilities, income, and expenditures, including the salaries paid to their officers, directors, and other specified employees.

The bill also required labour organizations and labour trusts to provide details on the time spent by certain members of their staff on political lobbying and non-labour relation activities. If organizations do not comply with these measures, they would face possible fines of $1,000 for each day of non-compliance, up to a maximum of $25,000 per year. This information would then be made publicly available on the CRA's website.

If the bill were left in place, employers would have access to the union's financial information, without requiring employers to make the same information available to unions. This would clearly put unions at a disadvantage during the collective bargaining process.

In addition, the financial reporting provisions of Bill C-377 were directed solely at labour organizations and labour trusts, not at other organizations, such as professional organizations that benefit from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act.

This kind of treatment is clearly discriminatory against trade unions. Why would they be subject to the onerous reporting obligations imposed by Bill C-377?

As hon. colleagues may recall, a number of other serious concerns were raised when the bill was brought forward.

The bill creates unnecessary extra red tape for unions. The fact is that there is already legislation in place to ensure that unions are accountable to their members. The Canada Labour Code already requires unions to provide their financial statements to their members on request, and free of charge.

It should be noted that many provinces have similar requirements in their labour statutes.

I would also like to remind the members of the House that Bill C-377 poses a potential breach of individual privacy.

In addition to raising privacy concerns, Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Bill C-377 duplicates the accountability measures put in place by almost every province, which have similar requirements in their labour laws. Section 110 of Canada Labour Code already requires unions, as well as employer organizations, to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge.

The bill also puts unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining by giving employers access to key information about unions, without being required to reciprocate.

Bill C-377 has tilted the playing field in favour of employers. For example, employers would know how much money the union had in its strike fund for a possible work stoppage and how long employees would stay out if it came to a strike. The union's most important negotiating lever is undermined by the bill.

There have also been concerns raised about the constitutionality of Bill C-377. The bill presents a potential constitutional challenge because the objective of the bill could be seen not as taxation but as a regulation of unions, which is, in large part, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

There have been also concerns over the constitutionality of the bill. The provinces of Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island have all stated their opposition to the bill for exactly those reasons.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees has launched a constitutional challenge to Bill C-377 before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

The bill is also problematic because it could apply to non-union organizations, such as some of the investment funds and others.

Clearly, some serious legal issues lie within Bill C-377.

Let us not forget the colossal administrative burden the new reporting requirements would have on unions, particularly the smaller ones, and on government itself.

To meet the requirements of Bill C-377, the Canada Revenue Agency would have to develop the necessary IT systems and other administrative systems. This, of course, comes at a hefty price, at least $2 million.

The Minister of National Revenue, knowing that we would be introducing legislation to repeal Bill C-377, has waived its reporting requirements for 2016. This will save labour organizations and trusts the time and money it would have cost to collect and file the information. However, this waiver is only a short-term solution.

Bill C-377 was loudly condemned by many labour organizations across the country. In fact, the president of the Quebec Union of Public Employees, SPGQ, Richard Perron referred to it as a “contemptible attack on our democratic values”.

I believe most employers appreciate that a level playing field in collective bargaining is essential to creating safe and productive workplaces. By the same token, an unbalanced approach such as this one can lead to unnecessary tensions and other problems in the workplace.

In fact, when the standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs held its deliberations on Bill C-377, the Hon. Erna Braun, MLA, who is the minister of labour and immigration of my home province of Manitoba, gave evidence. She expressed what she called serious concerns. She said:

Our view is that this bill is unnecessary and that it infringes on provincial jurisdiction....Under 10 per cent of workers in Canada work in federally regulated workplaces. Otherwise, the provincial governments throughout the country can and do independently set their own legislative priorities in the area of labour.

She went on to say that the provinces had been working with employers and employees for decades, and were already doing a good job of regulating labour relations. Our government agrees with that statement.

Bill C-377 is problematic for many reasons, but it is inconsistent with the constitution. That alone should be reason enough to repeal the legislative changes it made.

This brings me to Bill C-525, which was also a private member's bill. It actually came into force last June. This bill, which modified the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, changed the union certification and de-certification systems. The bill also replaced the existing card check system with a mandatory voting system.

Bill C-525 makes it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents, and makes it easier for a bargaining agent to be de-certified.

When we asked stakeholders what they thought of the new certification rules, many were displeased. Many said that the previous card check system was not only faster and more efficient, but it was also more likely to be free of employer interference. Overall, as many union spokespersons have pointed out, the card check model is faster, more efficient, and more likely to be free of employer interference than the new method.

Furthermore, repealing this bill will also alleviate pressure on the resources of the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board since these boards would need to hold fewer certification votes.

Despite the opposing views on the merits of the new and old systems, both labour and employer representatives were highly critical of how these changes were brought about. Changing our fundamental labour laws with a private member's bill, without conducting consultation through the traditional tripartite process, is not only wrong but potentially very problematic.

As Mr. John Farrell, the executive director of Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, told the parliamentary committee in February 2014:

This critical consultation process is completely bypassed when changes to the labour relations regime are proposed through the mechanism of one-off private members' bills. It provides no meaningful way for pre-legislative consultation to take place in an open and transparent manner, and it seeks changes without the required engagement of practitioners, recognized third-party neutrals, and the resources of government agencies charged with the responsibility to implement, adjudicate, and monitor the industrial relations system in the federal jurisdiction.

In the past, labour reforms of this sort were the subject of lengthy discussions between unions, employers, and the government. It was vital to have everyone at the table. This consultation process is essential to maintaining a fair and workable labour-management balance. It is a process that this government is strongly committed to. Therefore, we are also repealing this bill, because it upsets the balance that is so necessary for successful collective bargaining in this country.

That delicate balance is essential to sound labour relations, and the employer-employee relationship is vital to our economy. Why? Because sound labour relations provide stability and predictability in the labour force. These elements underpin a strong economy.

Unions play a critical role in the employer-employee relationships. Unions advocate for good wages and safe working environments. These are things that we can easily take for granted. Unfortunately, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were designed to “weaken the labour movement, period”. Those words came from Jerry Dias, president of Unifor. He also said that it did not have a stitch of common sense to it.

By repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, our government will restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

I am proud of the work we are doing to help restore this balance to the labour landscape of Canada. To put it simply, good labour relations are good for all of us.

The issue at hand here is very simple. These bills diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement. Bill C-4 will support and strengthen it.

Ethics

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has always complied with Elections Canada laws and has always stood up for the enforcement of those laws. We are proud of our record on this. Conservative Party members' constant attacks on unions are shameful. That is why we are going to repeal bills C-377 and C-525, which are unfair and undemocratic attacks on Canada's unions.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure today to try to right some of the wrongs of the past. Earlier today I introduced legislation in this House to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, both a direct attack on the Canadian labour movement.

Labour Organizations

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my bill, Bill C-377, has been working its way through the legislative process for the past four years. Along the way it has been improved by amendments passed in the House. It is at third reading in the other place and could soon come to a final vote. Canadians are hoping it does.

Polls tell us that well over 80% of Canadians, including union members, want public disclosure of labour organization finances. They have seen the corruption exposed at the Charbonneau commission and the Ontario Provincial Police Association, and they know that sunlight is the best disinfectant. They also know that some labour organizations spend the money of members against their wishes on elections. Whether it is for million dollar advertising campaigns or hiring campaign workers, they spend on partisan politics.

The public and union members should have the right to know how their money is being spent. Bill C-377 would give them that right.

Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate this opportunity to say a few words after the tremendous privilege of representing the good people of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale in this place for the past 11 years, and through four Parliaments.

First, I would like to thank the voters, my friends and neighbours who saw fit to send me here to this place, and then send me here again three more times. I am humbled by their trust in me and in our government, and have been proud of the many ways I and my team of office staff have been able to serve our community in this position.

I have always worked hard on their behalf, and since forming government in 2006, I have also been able to deliver on many of the priorities of our community. I have seen many millions of federal dollars spent in our district on projects large and small that have met important needs. I have also taken on some very specific projects and initiatives in Parliament that have benefited my community.

One in particular was the all-party border caucus, which I founded with former Liberal MP Roger Gallaway, and the current NDP MP for Windsor West shortly after arriving here. Those were challenging years for the Canada-U.S. relations. In the shadow of 9/11, security at the border was taking precedence over trade and efficiency, and sometimes even over common sense. Together, with border MPs from all parties, we met with our counterparts in the U.S. Congress and worked with them over the years to find solutions to the challenges of creating a secure and efficient border.

Another highlight for me was in 2006, when I had the honour to be elected by my colleagues to lead the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and was subsequently re-elected to serve six more terms. As one of the oldest democracies in the world, Canada offers real leadership to the more recently established nations, particularly in the developing world. The CPA makes a real contribution to developing democratic institutions in its 54-member nations, and I cherished playing a significant role in these efforts.

Serving as the parliamentary secretary first in national defence, then in intergovernmental affairs and western economic diversification was a unique opportunity to contribute to the work of our government. One of the highlights of my term was travelling to Kandahar to see the efforts of our Canadian troops selflessly working to make that struggling nation a better place. While I was there I was also able to deliver the first of a number of wheelchairs to disabled Afghan citizens. The wheelchairs were donated by the Canadian Wheelchair Foundation, a charity located in my district. What an honour it was for me to see the bravery and generosity of Canadians affecting the lives of those in need in a weary, wartorn land.

I have also greatly valued the opportunity I have had to serve on several valuable committees in the House. Among them are finance, national defence, international trade, natural resources, ethics and international human rights. It was my time on the international human rights committee that opened my eyes wider to the very real suffering and persecution that continues in many parts of the world. As such, I am thankful for a Prime Minister and a cabinet that have been bold and uncompromising in facing down evil where it exists around the world. Also, I am thankful for colleagues across party lines who are passionate about these same issues with whom I have been privileged to work.

I also come away from this experience with a greater appreciation of the legislative process. Throughout the beginning of this Parliament, I had the unusual privilege of being drawn number one in private members' business. My bill, Bill C-377, on financial disclosure for labour organizations, was passed through all three readings by my colleagues in this place, and is now at third reading in the other chamber, where I hope it will receive a final vote soon. I want to express my appreciation to so many colleagues, both here and in the Senate, for their tremendous support and encouragement, as Bill C-377 has slowly wound its way through the process.

Our success here is never achieved alone. When I look back, many names and faces come to mind of people who share in the good work that has been accomplished here in the past decade. Therefore, I want to conclude my remarks by offering thanks to just some of the many important people who have helped me along the way.

First of all, I thank my mother, Erna Hiebert, who raised me well and taught me the principles by which I should live my life. Her advice is still very valuable to me, and I have benefited from her support and pride in all that I do.

I also thank my wonderful wife, Andrea, my closest friend, biggest fan, and strongest supporter. We are a team. She softens my rougher edges. She sometimes makes my speeches more lively, and she holds down the fort at home capably and devotedly. We decided to embark on this adventure together. We have shared the ups and downs, and now we are choosing to take on new challenges together. I thank her for walking with me.

Departing politicians frequently cite the need to spend more time with family as one of the reasons that they are leaving public life, and this is certainly true in my case. When we started this political journey, it was just Andrea and me, but soon we were blessed with the birth of a little girl, Kate, who was born on, of all days, Canada Day. She was joined three years later by another special girl, Marie. Finally, remarkable twin brothers Ryan and Kyle joined their older sisters after the 2011 election. I want to thank them for their patience for all of the time that I was away, but I look forward to us spending more time together.

I have been fortunate to have a remarkable team in my offices both here in Ottawa and in British Columbia, helping me serve our community and making me look good. They have been invaluable to me. Thanks to each one of them for their service, friendship, and persistence.

Special thanks to Peter Stock, my political brother, strategic adviser and friend, who has worked with me for all of the past 11 years.

There are also many people who generously gave their time and resources to help me get elected and to maintain me in office. I cannot possibly name them all, but there are some key friends who have given tirelessly for years. Ed and Marlene Penner, Brian and Norma Bowen, and Don and Muriel Hanberg have been stalwart supporters. Mike Martens and Kathy Jary were instrumental not only in starting this journey, but also in surviving when the elections seemed never ending.

I also want to express my appreciation and deep respect for our leader, the Prime Minister, who remains the hardest working of all MPs. I want to thank him for his leadership and for the trust he has placed in me as a member of his team. I also want to thank each of my colleagues for their support, encouragement, and advice.

Politics is a team sport and at the national level it has been a great privilege playing on the Conservative team. I thank my friends.

While I look forward to a new and exciting chapter in my life, it has been an honour to serve in this chamber for the past 11 years. This unique place, the unparalleled experiences, the dear friends we have made along the way, the hard work, the objectives achieved, the remarkable people I have met and worked with from around the world, the opportunities to give back to my community and to my country; for all of this, I am thankful and feel tremendously blessed.

May God continue to keep our land strong, glorious, and free.

Public Service of Canada

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, those in the current Conservative government have become masters at coming up with solutions for problems that do not exist, especially when it comes to attacking organized labour. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 sort of come to mind.

These are benefits that have been fought for at the bargaining table and won.

It is obvious that the minister has come to the table with public servants to dictate, not to negotiate. Will the minister restore fairness into the process and show a little bit of respect for public servants?

Taxation

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that workers should have the right to know how their mandatory union dues are spent. This is something Canadians have been asking for. That is why we continue to support Bill C-377. It is a reasonable bill to increase transparency.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Montreal Canadiens fans are looking forward to round two.

I am sure that Calgary Flames' fans are just as excited.

However, hockey is yet another casualty of Conservative Bill C-377, which is anti-union and purely ideological.

The National Hockey League Players' Association has indicated that the bill could jeopardize trade agreements regarding video games made in Canada, hockey cards and international competitions, among other things.

Does the government understand that its botched bill will have a negative impact on the contribution of our national sport to the country's economy?

Intern Protection Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for bringing forward Bill C-636. I think everyone can agree that the goals of the bill are important and well-intentioned. It is not a partisan issue. It should be something that we want to get right. All legislators should want to get this particular issue right, so I am happy to stand to speak to it today.

The bill highlights a legitimate issue that up to now has not been considered through the normal tripartite process to amend the Canada Labour Code.

We are confronted with a situation where we know that unpaid interns have been exploited and we know that the protections under the Canada Labour Code are ambiguous at best. We also know that the number of unpaid interns appears to be on the rise, with no real regulations, especially in the federal sector, to ensure that interns are truly being provided with a valuable learning experience to improve their employable skills and that they are not just a way for employers to replace paid employees to improve their bottom line.

After having consulted with many stakeholders in the federal jurisdiction, I believe there is a consensus about the goals of the bill, but I have some concerns as to the best means to achieve those goals in a fair and balanced way that would minimize the unintended consequences.

Given that the stakeholders agree on the intent of the bill, I feel it deserves to go to committee where we can hear from all stakeholders on how best to realize the goals that the bill sets to achieve.

When we talk about internships, it means many things to many people. Depending upon the jurisdiction one is in, an unpaid intern may or may not have basic labour standards protections. I think everyone would agree that an unpaid intern should be protected from an unsafe work environment or be afforded rights to rest and hours of work rules, to be covered under the employer's sexual harassment policy that is required under the Canada Labour Code.

These are common labour standards that are clear for paid employees, but for unpaid interns are very unclear. When we have weak or unclear laws that are the only protection for vulnerable groups of people, we have fertile ground for exploitation.

We know that the number of unpaid internships appears to have increased over the last decade, and especially since the recession. I say “appears” because we do not have that hard data.

My colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, has done a great job on this file. He was one of the first people to talk about unpaid interns and the need for accurate statistics, and the establishment of clear standards that would safeguard legitimate opportunities while protecting unpaid interns against exploitation.

Timely, accurate, and relevant labour market information is fundamental to good public policy, and people have been calling upon the government to track unpaid internships for several years now. During the finance committee's study on youth employment, a number of groups advocated exactly for this.

As Claire Seaborn, president of the Canadian Intern Association, and a strong advocate for better internship laws, said, “You can't fix a problem if you don't know what the problem is”.

However, we all know the current government's aversion to collecting data for evidence-based policy, preferring instead to use policy-based evidence. This perhaps explains why it has done nothing to improve data collection or strengthen intern protections.

We know that today's job market for youth is very weak. In fact, we have lost 150,000 youth jobs since before the recession, and the youth unemployment rate is almost double the national average. This has led to more youth becoming desperate for work and feeling pressured to accept unpaid internships to get work experience.

As the number of unpaid internships has grown, with no rules in place and unclear protections, so too has the anecdotal evidence of exploitation by employers. That is why Bill C-636 is needed to ensure basic workplace protections in the Canada Labour Code, with those protections being clearly extended to unpaid interns. In addition, rules on what information the employer must provide to the intern on the internship would help to clarify the relationship for both parties.

Although I agree with the intent of the bill, I do have concerns regarding the process we are using to propose an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. Labour laws are complex, and ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of the employees and the employers. They are developed through an informed, fair, and thorough consultative tripartite process that seeks, in part, to minimize any unintended consequences. The Liberals believe in the established tripartite process between labour, management, and government, which has served our federal sector well for amending the Canada Labour Code.

The private members' bill process is a poor means to make laws concerning such a complex system. That being said, the need to ensure basic labour standard protections for vulnerable youth participating in unpaid internships is something that everyone I have consulted with appears to agree on; for example, protections against unsafe work environments, unreasonable work hours, or sexual harassment.

I have consulted with many stakeholders, including employer and labour groups, respected labour law experts, and intern and student representatives. The problem is not that they do not believe unpaid interns should have Labour Code protections, but rather how best to provide these protections to ensure there are no unintended consequences in other aspects of the Labour Code that apply to the workplace.

Labour laws are complex, and when parliamentarians seek to amend them, it should be done with great care and through an established process that allows thorough review and consultation. I have concerns about amending the Canada Labour Code through this private member's bill which is outside of the established tripartite process. That being said, we are confronted as parliamentarians with the fact that we have ambiguous laws concerning unpaid interns and evidence that exploitation is taking place. It is incumbent that we move, as legislators.

We also have a government that has not yet taken any appropriate action. My colleague has said that legislation is coming forward and that the parliamentary secretary undertook an ambitious study across the country. When the government undertakes its own studies with witnesses that the government wants to hear from, obviously it is not going to get the quality of work that should be done in the committees of this House. That is where the work should be getting done. However, under the current government, we have seen that committees have been neutered. An issue as important as unpaid interns, giving opportunities to the young people in this country to gain valuable work experience, is work that this House should be seized with. Instead, we are seeing the Conservatives once again skirting this issue.

To summarize, we believe that any change in the Canada Labour Code should be done through a tripartite process. We have seen the government undertake private members' legislation, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, to amend the Labour Code. We did not agree with them or support them.

With the Conservatives' lack of action on unpaid interns, at least we should be looking at the situation. That is why we will be encouraging our members in the House to support Bill C-636, to get to the root of it and hopefully help young Canadians who are looking for very valuable job experience.

Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me once again today to rise in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, to oppose a bill. I rise as a member of the official opposition to represent the values of the NDP, which is opposing a back-to-work bill for the seventh time since the Conservatives took power in 2006. This government is certainly a repeat offender when it comes to attacking workers, violating their legitimate rights and preventing them from exerting pressure, which includes going on strike.

In 2007 we had Bill C-46 for the continuation of railway operations, so this is not the first time. In 2009 we had Bill C-61 for the continuation of railway operations once again. In 2011 it was Bill C-6 to restore mail delivery. That bill targeted postal workers and letter carriers. Also in 2011 was Bill C-5 to continue air service for passengers. Then we had Bill C-39 and Bill C-33 in 2012, when the Conservatives once again created a power imbalance between the parties. They systematically took the employer's side and took away fundamental rights from unionized workers, who are well within their rights to exert pressure.

I asked the minister a question earlier that I believe is the key issue we are concerned about: do people still have the right to strike and use pressure tactics in Canada today? Does this Conservative government recognize that striking is a legitimate way of expressing the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining? The Conservatives seem to be completely ignoring that aspect, and I will come back to that later. The Supreme Court's recent decision has once again upheld this right that the Conservatives have been flouting, year after year, in Canada.

We have reached a point where workers have to ask themselves whether they will be bothering anyone if they exercise their right to strike. Will the government systematically intervene and break the rules to give the employer more power and additional arguments? The situation is always the same. If the employer knows for sure that it does not really have to reach an agreement because its friends in the Conservative government will intervene, violate rights and prevent its workers from striking, then what incentive does the employer have to negotiate in good faith and try to find a solution? That is the major problem.

They should give negotiation a chance.

We have a Conservative government that is always on the side of the employers and never on the side of the workers of this country. Workers have a fundamental right to exert economic pressure and strike if they need to in order to force employers to recognize problems and find solutions.

The minister just said that a negotiated deal is always better than an imposition of anything. Why is she imposing back to work legislation again and again? It is the seventh time that the Conservatives would do that since they were elected in 2006. It is a bad habit that they have; they take a side every time and break the balance of power between the two parties. We are saying to give the workers a chance to negotiate and to exert their rights.

The Minister of Labour just said that the recent decision of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the right to strike. I contradict that. I have a quote from a Supreme Court judge in that decision from a few weeks ago. Judge Abella wrote the following:

Where good faith negotiations break down, the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services is a necessary component of the process through which workers can continue to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their collective workplace goals. In this case, the suppression of the right to strike amounts to a substantial interference with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

This is exactly what the decision of the Supreme Court is about. It is about the fundamental right of workers to exert some pressure on an employer to improve their working conditions.

If those workers are refused the right to strike, that is an interference of their fundamental rights. This is exactly what the Conservative government is doing, again and again.

It is a sad day. The right to strike in this country is under attack. Unions were considered illegal organizations before 1872. We are asking whether the government wants to go back to that point in time. Every time that it can crush workers and their unions, the government does it systematically. It has done it with Bill C-525, Bill C-377, and Bill C-4, other attacks on health and safety issues.

It is a sad day for democracy. It is a sad day for the workers of this country. It is a sad day for the labour movement. Workers can count on the NDP to defend their rights because we will protect the freedom of negotiation and collective bargaining. This is a value that we on this side of the House cherish and care about. Workers know that in a few months they will have the opportunity to have the first social democrat, pro-union, pro-worker, government in this country. It is coming.

I would like to reiterate that the labour minister told us that the Supreme Court's recent decision had nothing to do with exerting economic pressure or the right to strike. However, Justice Abella indicated in the ruling given a few weeks ago that the suppression of the right to strike interferes with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, a process that provides an opportunity to get results.

In this case, it is extremely dangerous for the entire labour movement and for all workers to have a government that systematically takes the employer's side and tramples on workers' rights.

It is critical with the CP issue, and when there is a threat of back-to-work legislation hanging over their heads, to ask why the employer would negotiate in good faith. The employer knows it has good friends in power in Ottawa. The government will be on the employer's side and will force workers to go back to work. There is no reason for the employer to negotiate and look for a compromise.

Our concern is also the safety issue that is on the table for Canadian Pacific workers. It is a safety issue for everybody in this country: for the workers, first and foremost, of course, but also for everybody else. It is a question of the hours of work being too long, and extreme fatigue. We are talking about conductors who are driving freight trains that can be four kilometres long. We can imagine the consequences if the conductor is too tired to be aware of the dangers or everything that is going on.

This is not only the vision of the union. It is a problem that has been recognized by Transport Canada, and even by the companies. Transport Canada's own analysis of CP and CN employee scheduling records, from six different rail terminals across Canada, concluded that on the timing and length of each shift, assigned through an unpredictable on-call system, extreme fatigue was rampant.

In 4% of cases, employees were already extremely fatigued at the start of their shift because they did not have enough hours to sleep. It is a shame.

The government is not acting to correct that situation. Canadians should know that their safety is being put at risk by the government. We want that to change.

Forty-five percent of employees became extremely exhausted during work, and nearly all, 99%, were fatigued at least once during a month.

It was the same problem, the same issue, three years ago when employees of CP went on strike for a couple of days. After that, of course the Conservative government came here to vote on back-to-work legislation. The workers at that time were promised that the situation would be fixed: “Do not go on strike, we will negotiate and fix it.”

However, three years later, it is the same story. The same problems are still there. Extreme fatigue is still a problem for members of the Teamsters who are working for CP. Nothing has changed. We are back here again in the House of Commons, talking about back-to-work legislation.

My guess is that in three years we will be back again, because the issue will still not have been solved. There is no incentive for CP to solve the problem. The Conservatives are not helping. The Minister of Labour is not helping.

I think it is worth repeating, because the main issue in dispute here is not that workers want higher pay or want to extort more money from their employer. This is not about money. Incidentally, Canadian Pacific is an extremely profitable company. It has nothing to complain about; business is good. The discussions and debates are really about a matter of public safety. People need to be aware of that, because this is about the problem of too much overtime and the fatigue this causes. Canadian Pacific workers, the train operators, are not getting the rest they need, which leads to extreme fatigue.

What do the workers want? To be able to stop working and go home after 10 hours of work. All they are asking for is to not work more than 10 hours. What is this, the 19th century? Right now, train conductors have to work up to 12 hours straight before they can get a real rest. This is 2015; this is shameful. This Conservative government is doing nothing. In fact, it is actually helping rail companies perpetuate this practice.

Consider the potential consequences if a conductor driving a four-kilometre-long train is tired, does not have the necessary reflexes, and is unable to read the terrain or the dangers up ahead. Recent tragedies have shown us how important rail safety is. Everyone needs to know that this is a public safety issue and that the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.

A few minutes ago, I said that three years ago, CP workers, Teamsters members, went on strike for a few days on the issue of fatigue on the job and lack of breaks. The Conservative government forced them back to work. They were told not to worry, that this would be resolved, that there would be negotiations and recommendations would be made. Nothing was done. Today, in 2015, three years later, these same workers are going back on strike on the same issue of fatigue at work because nothing has been resolved. Now, we have another bill that is going to force them back to work again.

Should we allow the Conservatives to remain in power, I would not be surprised if people have to deal with a CP strike in three years. Unfortunately, if the Conservatives are still in power, they will again force them to go back to work. However, even Transport Canada recognized the issue of workplace fatigue for train conductors. It is not the Teamsters, the union, the CLC, but Transport Canada that is talking about this. Investigations of six different train terminals across the country led Transport Canada to conclude that the problem of extreme fatigue was rampant across Canada. In 4% of cases, employees are even extremely fatigued at the start of their shift, at the start of their work day, because they often do not get enough rest between two shifts. Fully 45% of employees are extremely tired or even exhausted while on the job. Forty-five per cent. Almost everyone, 99% according to Transport Canada, is tired at least once a month.

That has an impact on the workers. Obviously, it is bad for their health, their family life and their work. It puts everyone at risk.

The NDP does not want train conductors to experience fatigue at work. That is basic and straightforward. We do not understand why the Conservatives are still refusing to resolve this issue.

Even our neighbours to the south, the United States, where private enterprise is king and people despise regulations, have more regulations governing hours of work for rail company employees than we do. That is bizarre.

Why have the Conservatives never managed to fix this problem? We do not understand, but it puts huge swaths of our communities at risk.

Over the past five years, there have been at least seven accidents that, thankfully, did not cost any lives, but that happened because train conductors were tired at work. This is a real problem.

We have to find a solution, but we will not find a solution by preventing workers from exercising their right to take job action or go on strike. We know that because this is like groundhog day: it is the same old story over and over again.

I want to emphasize the fact that it is a real problem. The extreme fatigue of CP workers is real. Transport Canada has revealed that in the last five years, at least seven accidents or incidents were caused by fatigue of drivers or conductors of those trains. It is a real problem, but the government has no solution. Its only way to act is always ideological, always against unions, always against workers and against the safety of Canadians.

It is really sad. It is another case of the Conservatives going against international law. There is a labour organization in Switzerland that recognized that the right to strike is a fundamental right in modern societies. Once again, the government is going against the last decision of the Supreme Court and against international law.

On this side of the House, we think that workers can organize, defend their rights, and improve their working conditions. It is not the job of the government to oppose that, because it helps to build better communities. We always hear the Conservatives talk about the middle class and how they will defend the little guys of the middle class, but the middle class is, for the most part, a creation of the labour movement in this country and in all countries. Without the labour movement we would have no middle class.

If we want to defend the middle class, we must give the workers the tools to negotiate, to gain something in collective agreements, and to make sure that they are working in safe places. We must make sure that we do not put the safety of citizens of this country at risk.

Not only is the current federal government going against the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Saskatchewan case, but it is also going against regulations of the Geneva-based International Labour Organization, which considers the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining to be fundamental.

However, this is not surprising coming from an extremely ideological Conservative government that always responds in the same way when Canadian workers try to exercise their rights and improve their working conditions. This government pulls out the big guns and beats them back, telling them to shut up and get back to work. It does not want to listen to them; they are annoying.

What is important to this government is that companies continue to rake in profits, regardless of how or why and regardless of the rules, even if it makes people sick.

The Conservatives often like to say they are standing up for the middle class. However, the middle class is mainly a creation and a consequence of union struggles by workers who got organized, defended themselves at their workplace and negotiated better collective agreements.

If we are talking about the middle class, we must also talk about the tools that workers created to improve their situation. The NDP will always be there to stand up for workers and their families, for workplace health and safety and for public safety.

Unfortunately, again today, we see that the Conservative government is violating workers' rights and putting public safety at risk. I hope that all of us in the House will oppose this back-to-work bill—yet another one—and stand up not only for workers, but also for the middle class and public safety.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Yes, time allocation motions are a problem that we have had in connection with many bills. There have been so many that I have lost track.

In the committees that I belong to, the Conservatives have always tended not to give us enough time to study bills. That was especially true in the case of Bill C-377 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but it happens in other committees too.

There is another technique the Conservatives use often: meeting in camera. Anytime they want to discuss something and use their majority, but they do not want the conversations to be public and available to Canadian citizens, they go in camera.

My colleague is absolutely right: we have to condemn this situation because we are here to discuss serious bills that will have serious consequences for the lives of people in jail and for the public purse. That is true not only at the federal level, but also at the provincial level.

Taxation

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, again, we believe that workers deserve the ability to know how their mandatory dues are being spent. Canadians understand that. They get that when we take dues away and make it mandatory that there should be some transparency. That is why we continue to support Bill C-377. It is a reasonable bill. It would increase transparency. I believe that it would increase accountability.

It was introduced in December 2011 and has spent two years in the Senate. It is time to get it out of the Senate. We believe that we need to move the bill ahead.