Bill C-525 (Historical)

Employees' Voting Rights Act

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent under these Acts must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

moved that Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and talk about the employees' voting rights act.

The bill was first introduced on June 5 back, in the spring. This legislation seeks to harmonize the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

It is well known through jurisprudence in our country that the fundamental right of peaceful association is afforded to all Canadians. This is especially enshrined in section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court of Canada has reiterated that when it comes to our rights as working Canadians, peaceful association is protected.

I have heard from constituents all over my riding and across Canada about concerns that workers have when it comes to their union's representation. They feel confined and they speak of intimidation from their own union and its organizers.

I will talk a little bit about a particular call I had from someone who was so worried about the intimidation and tactics that his own union had placed on him that he was reluctant at first to even give me his name as one of my own constituents. He related stories to me on a personal level about vindictiveness and intimidation tactics being used by his own union against him just because he was asking some questions about how union dues were spent and other matters pertaining to his union membership.

The right to peaceful association is granted to workers through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the unmitigated right union leaders feel they have to represent a particular workplace is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is something that must be earned from the membership.

Union leaders have forgotten that representation is contingent upon workers placing their trust in the particular union of their choice through a democratic selection process. It is for this very reason that I introduced the employees' voting rights act.

It is time to put the needs of the boots over the needs of the suits when it comes to workers with respect to their representation. The democratic vote is something for which people have fought for centuries. Democracy is fundamental, and many people have paid the ultimate sacrifice for that. The right to be able to vote one's will, free of intimidation or threat, is a fundamental freedom and a right that should be extended to all workers.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could be against a mandatory ballot vote. In his recent ruling in the Province of Saskatchewan v. the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, the Honourable Mr. Justice Richards wrote on behalf of the majority of the Court of Appeal's ruling, “The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of a modern democracy.”

I agree with the Hon. Justice Richards. If union membership can elect their national president or any of their executives, directors, or leadership by way of a secret ballot, then in all fairness the workers should be afforded the very same right to have a secret ballot during the union certification process.

Justice Richards is a very wise and pragmatic man. As he continued in rendering his verdict, he stated:

...a secret ballot regime does no more than ensure that employees are able to make the choices they see as being best for themselves.

This is the essence behind the employees' voting rights act: giving the workers the right to vote and making sure their voice is heard loud and clear in a definitive manner.

It is not the responsibility or duty of any legislative body, this House included, to provide a statutory framework that makes certification or decertification with a collective bargaining unit as easy as possible. However, it is the responsibility and duty of legislators and this House to ensure that the voices of employees are heard in a fair and democratic manner.

The employees' voting rights bill does just this. The legislation strikes a balance in the certification and decertification process of a collective bargaining unit, and it is not about swaying favour toward the union or the employer. This is about balance.

The legislation I propose would create a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice as to what they feel is best suited to their needs. I do not expect my colleagues in the NDP to understand or even accept these proposed changes, which is fine with me. Hard-working Canadian families know the NDP is clearly in the pockets of the big union bosses who want to maintain their stranglehold on workers and muzzle their democratic voice.

We know that not every single employee wishes to be part of a union. We also know that unions are driven by the need for power. They are furnished with a never-ending stream of monies through the dues they collect from those hard-working employees they claim to represent.

Justice Rand acknowledged the merits of the secret ballot as a way to counterbalance the unadulterated power of union suits. Justice Rand understood the potential for intimidation to be thrust upon workers by those seeking to exercise power or control over them.

I have heard, loud and clear, the positions of the unions. I have read the visceral nature of comments from people who are card-carrying members of the Alberta New Democratic Party and what they think of the employees' voting rights bill. Let me say this. I will not be intimidated by union bosses or union organizers. When we hear one person complain about the actions of union organizers, that can be dismissed as a one-off situation. However when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

The voice of workers is being trumped by the personal desire of union bosses and organizers. Democracy should not be about suppression.

The right to peaceful association is one that extends to all workers in Canada, should they wish to have a union represent them or not. The choice is theirs to make, and it should be theirs to make. The choice does not belong to the union.

The current card-check system has its flaws. It leaves open the opportunity for employees to be intimidated and for undemocratic behaviour to be conducted. If Robyn Benson can be elected as the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada through a secret ballot vote, then I will let the NDP and Mrs. Benson explain why Canadian workers should not have the same right to a secret ballot vote to determine if they want to have a union in the first place.

I believe firmly that the provisions included in the employees' voting rights bill would bring balance to our labour relations. It would bring much-needed changes to the legislation that governs our federal sectors. As well, this would deliver a clear message from the employees who work in the workplace. I can think of no better uniting force for workers than to have a strong and unified voice, one way or the other.

The union bosses have lost their sense of what hard-working Canadians need and want. The employees' voting rights bill is about workers. It is about workers recapturing their voice. It is about workers being able to stand up and say in a unwavering manner what they, the workers themselves, want, not what the union leadership wants.

Make no mistake; unions have a place in our system, but the leadership of these labour organizations have to accept the reality that we live in today. They need not be afraid of these proposed changes. Should the employees in a workplace decide that the service being provided or offered by the union is one they feel is worth the investment, then they will continue to hold the place they have or gain entry into whichever workplace they are attempting to enter.

Union membership, however, is on the decline in OECD countries. This is a trend that should alarm union bosses and union organizers. However, it seems they are more content with fighting semantics than embracing the need for change and evolution. They need to accept that they do not have a monopoly on the representation of workers. Just because they are a union and they wish to represent a certain employment sector, that alone should not be the deciding factor as to whether a union is in that workplace or not. It should always be the employees' choice.

The employees' voting rights bill is about empowering the workers, giving the employees the hallmark of a modern democracy and providing the workers with an opportunity to exercise their democratic and charter-protected right of peaceful association through a secret ballot vote.

The provisions contained within the employees' voting rights bill would demonstrate the will of the employees in a clear and definitive manner.

I hope that all members of the House, and particularly my colleagues in the NDP, will support workers and the principle of democracy and get behind this legislation, unite with workers and give them back their voice. If members wanted to take a look at all of the polling information, it would be very clear to everyone in the House that when Canadians are asked whether they think a secret ballot should be in the workplace, in virtually every poll, poll after poll, the results are very clear. Over 80% of workers in most polls want the right to have a secret ballot vote in the union certification and decertification process. What is even more interesting is that, depending on the poll one looks at, these results are higher in the province of Quebec and even higher when asking a current member or a past member of a union, because these employees clearly understand what can go on in the workplace when it comes to union intimidation and fear tactics.

I have heard several criticisms from various voices—and I know who those voices are—that allege that my legislation would create an unfair situation. It is not unreasonable to expect that a union should have a large majority of support from the workers it claims to represent. The only way to truly know that is by having a secret ballot vote. Some would contend that no MP is elected with a large majority in that way. They should be careful what they say, because some MPs are actually elected with large majorities and I might be one of them.

On the other hand, I never go to a doorstep of someone's house, as it is alleged in various cases before the labour relations board. None of us, when we are door knocking, have the privilege of going up to people on their doorstep and saying, “I think it's in your best interest if you vote for me right here, right now”. That is intimidation. We would not tolerate that kind of tactic or behaviour in the election of any member of Parliament in the House, and it should not be accepted in the workplace either.

I want to end by saying it is not unreasonable at all to expect that a secret ballot should be provided to workers. There is absolutely nothing to fear other than a true and valid result from asking workers what their true wishes and desires are regarding whether they want to belong to a union or not. The only way to do that is to give them a secret ballot vote.

Let us get on with business and this debate. I am curious to see what kinds of comments are going to come from this. This is a very straightforward piece of legislation. It simply proposes to take an option in the labour law that says right now that the labour board may conduct a vote. Let us conduct that vote every time and make sure Canadian workers' voices are clearly heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Wetaskiwin for his bill and the debate he is bringing before the House. I would also like to congratulate him on being re-elected two years ago in his riding. I believe that he won 81% of the vote. That is quite impressive, I must say.

Now, let us look at the details of his bill. If workers want to unionize, they must have an absolute majority, not just of those who vote, but of all those who work in the bargaining unit. With 81% of the vote, he had sufficient support to be re-elected.

Why does the member want to subject workers in our country, men and women who want to form a union, to a more stringent rule than the one that governed his own re-election?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no member of Parliament was elected by a yes/no question, not even the member who just asked me that question. The question on a ballot in a union certification process requires a yes or no. There are not five or six candidates vying for a first past the post system, which we have here.

What is unreasonable right now is that there are certain circumstances whereby unions are created in this country with less than 50% of the workforce's support. That means that the minority of workers in that workplace have their will imposed on the majority of workers. In a union certification process, if the union membership can convince the members to sign 50% card check, why on earth can they not do it in a secret ballot? What do they have to be afraid of?

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

Mr. Speaker, to make substantive changes to the provisions in the Canada Labour Code is fairly significant, which this is, so I would think there would be a fair amount of documentation on the rationale behind the purpose of this legislation.

There have been very strong accusations about intimidation by union leaders and union organizers.

I would ask my colleague, in this day and age where everybody is so hypersensitive about harassment and harassment charges, if he could give us an indication of the total number of charges that have been laid against union officials for harassment or if he could give us the number of files that have been before the labour relations board with regard to such actions.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the same privileges I do as a member of Parliament. He can ask the Canada Industrial Labour Relations Board this question himself.

However, I have a lot of cases that have piled up. There are cases in the media. I would be more than happy to talk about them.

In fact, I could table the document right now if I had all-party support to do it, cited as Fabricland Pacific Limited v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 287, in which the individual here claims just that, that people show up at her place during the union certification drive, demanding that they sign the card check.

I understand that my Liberal colleague, who I believe is the critic on the labour file, is asking this question; so let us debate it. Let us have that discussion. If he has some different ideas as to how we could improve the legislation, I would be willing to listen to what those happen to be.

However, if he wanted to look up some statistics about the need for democracy, one only needs to count the over 100,000 names on cenotaphs across this country of people who fought for freedom and democracy and the ability to cast a secret ballot vote. Surely to goodness that list is long enough.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member is trying to impose democracy where we find very little, which is in this chamber.

The notion that a small minority of members of a bargaining unit could in fact turf out a union is anathema to me and to many trade unionists. We know where the intimidation comes from. One only has to talk to the workers at a McDonald's in Ontario, in Orangeville, to find just what intimidation from the employer is all about prior to a vote. Yes, they had enough cards before the vote, then the vote, and the vote overturned it because they were all afraid they were going to lose their jobs because the employer was going to fire them all if they voted in favour of the union.

That is exactly the kind of thing that this card check certification in the labour code prevents. The intimidation comes from both sides.

I wonder if the member would comment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a very discerning question. I would say back to him, just as we have in our democratic process to elect members to this House, there is nothing wrong with an environment whereby the employer and the union are vying for support of the worker during a union certification drive.

If that is the case, then the workers themselves ultimately will have their choice through a secret ballot vote. They will either decide that forming a collective bargaining unit is in their best interests or not, which means the employer is going to have to do everything it needs to do to maintain its workforce and the union is going to do everything it needs to do to convince employees to vote in favour of union certification.

Competition between those two events will only result in the best offer being made to those employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to worry. Unions are not afraid of competition when it is done fairly and equitably and when there is truly a balance of power.

The NDP and I agree that this private member's bill, Bill C-525, is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The translation is not working. It is now.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie can start his speech over.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, unions are not afraid of competition when it is done fairly and equitably and when there is truly a balance of power. Unfortunately the government is targeting that balance.

The NDP and I agree that this private member's bill, Bill C-525, is sadly a new way for the Conservatives to trample workers' right to unionize.

I want to point out that this initiative is not an isolated event. It is yet another vicious Conservative attack in their war against the union movement and, as a result, against the middle class.

This government is once again using dubious tactics to advance a completely ideological and backward agenda. As with its previous Bill C-377, which also aimed to weaken unions, the government is trying to make matters worse with Bill C-525.

However, the Conservatives need to remember that the right of association benefits our economy. It helps protect millions of good-quality jobs in Canada and is recognized by both international law and our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Through the decades, union struggles have built stronger communities and allowed domestic demand to flourish because of decent working conditions and better purchasing power. They have also helped to make a place for women in the workforce and to establish pension plans so that people can live in dignity in their golden years.

That brings us back to the latest Conservative affront to the workers of our country. We must not forget that this bill denies employees' legitimate, normal right to form a union after getting more than 50% of their signatures on membership cards. This principle remains important to the NDP and represents the surest and most civil way for people to organize in the workplace.

Bill C-525 not only goes so far as to demand a significant increase in the number of cards that need to be signed to set the process of union certification into motion, but it also flies in the face of all our traditions about the rules for a secret ballot.

In an unprecedented and troubling move, this government will automatically count employees who do not express support for the establishment of a union with those who oppose it. It will become much more difficult for workers to form a union than for a political party to win an election in Canada.

Here is a very specific example. Let us say that people in a workplace of 100 employees want to stand up for their rights and improve their working conditions. Naturally, they look to form an organization, a union, that will do so. The time comes for the vote imposed by our friends opposite. According to their rules, it takes a majority of all the workers, not just a majority of those who get out and vote. This is really pernicious, really perverse.

If 49 of our group of 100 go and vote and they all vote for a union, sorry, that will not be enough. The attempt fails because those who did not vote are deemed to have voted against the union. It is incredible and absurd.

If the employer gives some people the day off on voting day, he completely changes the picture. The icing on the cake is that, when the workers try to abolish the union, those who do not vote are considered to have voted in favour of decertification.

Do we all realize that the dice are loaded in this bill and that it is so flawed that, frankly, it has become offensive?

This new anti-union bill is the last attack of the Conservative government to weaken the labour movement and the capacity of workers to organize themselves in their workplace. To preserve the process where people sign membership cards is the best way to protect workers from the pressures and tactics of some employers. To impose a vote is to open the door to threats and intimidation. The studies are clear. When we take that road, the success to form a union drops. It is a 10% to 20% decrease. It is a huge difference for thousands of workers, men and women, who would not be able to benefit from a union.

What is especially vicious in this bill is when the vote comes, all of those who did not vote are considered to have voted against the union. This is incredible. The best is when they have a vote to kill the union, all those who did not vote are counted as if they have voted in favour of the end of the union. Can we not all see that this is unfair, that it is a biased process against employees?

We have to ask why the Conservatives want to bring in such a system for workers covered by the Canada Labour Code. Every province that has adopted this method has seen adverse effects.

In Ontario, when similar legislation was passed in 1995, the number of accreditation requests dropped by 40%, and the percentage of successful requests fell below 50%. The same thing happened in British Columbia between 1984 and 1992.

Although the Conservatives maintain that they are acting for the good of the economy, and I have my doubts about that, it cannot be said that they are giving much thought to middle-class workers. Once again, the Conservatives have chosen to further business interests at the expense of those of ordinary people.

The Conservatives would have us believe that there will be no impact on the ability of Canadians and Quebeckers to unionize. That is completely false. Either they know this and it suits them just fine, or they have no idea of how things happen in real life, on the ground, at McDonald's and Walmart and the Couche-Tard convenience stores in Quebec.

As proof, if you take even a glancing look at university research on the matter, you can clearly see the negative impact that seems to follow moving from the traditional union accreditation method using membership cards to a secret ballot. Successful unionization attempts fall by 9%, according to researcher Susan Johnson of Wilfrid Laurier University. In this way, we will run the risk of getting closer to an American model, where lower salaries are the norm and the middle class is being eroded.

The member for Wetaskiwin has certainly not read these studies. If he had done so, he would have understood that using the current membership card accreditation method reduces the use of unfair and dishonest practices by the employer. However, perhaps he is familiar with these studies and is quite pleased with them. It is either one or the other.

To put it plainly, with the traditional method involving cards, 50% fewer employers decide to wage an anti-union campaign. This translates into a better work atmosphere and more respectful relationships. Otherwise, we are opening the door to the use of threats, to barely veiled references to potential closures or job losses, the usual scarecrows employers brandish to frighten workers who simply want to stand up for themselves and improve their lot.

The period between the request for certification and the vote seems to be the key moment when chances of success drop significantly. The longer the wait, the more time employers have to intervene and use unfair practices to have a negative influence on employees.

Members in the House right now have to pay attention to that fact, which has been studied and reported on. It is clear that Bill C-525 goes much further than its sponsor would have us believe. We have to ask ourselves what kind of society we want. Do we want a more egalitarian society like the one we have had in Canada for decades, or do we want a less egalitarian society similar to the one in the United States?

It is clear to me that the government has made its choice. Bill C-525, like Bill C-377, clearly reveals the Conservatives' economic strategy centred on poorly paid jobs and workers at the mercy of their employers.

However, I want to say that the NDP has made its choice too. The NDP will keep working for workers, for their rights, for better distribution of wealth and for the dignity of all.

If the government really wants to improve the labour market and families' living conditions, it should strengthen our communities, not try to undo what little progress the middle class has made.

It is sad to see that, after failing to revive the economy, the Conservatives are giving up on creating and maintaining good jobs. Before trying to teach workers a thing or two about democracy, the Conservatives should take some time for a little introspection. People are asking serious questions about their ability to manage the country, about prorogation and about scandals.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am getting the translation now, but I was not getting it and I am most interested in what my colleague has to say.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

For the remaining minute of his speech, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie could perhaps continue with the last page, for example.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government really wants to improve the labour market and families' living conditions, it should instead protect the rights of workers.

It should strengthen our communities, not try to undo what little progress the middle class has made. However, it is sad to see that, after failing to revive the economy, the Conservatives are giving up on creating and maintaining good jobs.

Before trying to teach workers a thing or two about democracy, the Conservatives should do some soul-searching. Canadians and Quebeckers are asking serious questions about how the Conservatives are running the country, the prorogations of Parliament, the attempts to cover up scandals, robocalls, election expenses and the Senate.

Workers in this country know that they can count on one party, the NDP, to be their voice in Parliament and stand up for their interests.

In 2015, we will bring down this government of privileged and powerful people and install a government that, for the first time, will meet the needs of the people.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

My apologies to all hon. members for some of the audio difficulties we experienced with that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-525, the bill we are debating today, is yet another piece of Conservative anti-labour legislation that will be used to try to turn back the clock on labour relations in our country. My party and I oppose this legislation as it is written.

Today, I want to talk about why this bill is bad labour relations legislation, why it is undemocratic at its core and why it is not needed. It is simply a solution in search of a problem.

The decision by the House to either pass or defeat the bill will come down to whether we believe it upholds the principles inherent in making good labour laws through a legitimate process, a process that is driven by the groups directly affected, employers and unions, through a real consultative and consensus-building process that is based on the principles of balance, fairness and mutual respect.

I remember back to the last bill we had. Almost no Conservative members in the House stood up for those principles in what was another anti-labour Conservative bill, Bill C-377, which was passed in the House earlier this year. It took a small group of Conservative senators, led by Senator Hugh Segal, to stand with all of my Liberal Senate colleagues and oppose the bill in the Senate. In the coming weeks, as we debate Bill C-525, I ask my Conservative colleagues opposite to have the courage to uphold these principles. I ask that they base their decision on what is right, not what they are being told is right by the Prime Minister's Office.

Bill C-525 would impact thousands of employers and approximately 600,000 employers within the federal jurisdiction. That is 600,000 people who have the right to ensure we as politicians respect principles inherent to creating fair and balanced labour relations laws for them and their employers.

We are fortunate that the current federal labour system is well-respected and supported by both unions and employers. Why? Because it is a result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades for amending the Canada Labour Code. There are clear examples of thoughtful, balanced and independent reviews of the Canada Labour Code. The last major consultative review of the Canada Labour Code occurred in 1995 and the subsequent report “Seeking a balance: Canada Labour Code, Part 1, Review” was authored by Andrew Sims.

The Sims report was led by a three person panel of highly regarded neutrals. It involved seven months of research and consultation.

In that report, Mr. Sims outlined the guiding principles that served the review, including that the existing Canada Labour Code basically continued to serve its constituencies well, that stability was desirable and that pendulum-like changes to the Code did not serve the best interests of the parties or the public and that consensus between the parties was the best basis for advocating legislative change.

Basically, Mr. Sims said that if labour laws were to be changed, they should be changed because there was a demonstrated need because the legislation was no longer working or serving the public interest or it should be done on a consensual basis.

I ask the House whether it believes Bill C-525 meets these criteria or is based on those principles that employers and unions currently respect and agree upon.

The Sims report went on to talk about the dangers of politicizing labour laws. I think that is what we are seeing here. I quote from the Sims report:

Throughout our deliberations, we heard both labour and management comment on the need for stability in our labour legislation. Both sides were reacting to what they view as excessive experimentation in the labour law reforms of a number of provinces.... Some would push the pendulum one way, some the other. However, the concern identified by both sides is that the pendulum should not be pushed too far or too frequently. To do so destroys the predictability and underlying credibility upon which an effective...system depends.

The Sims report was a true consultative review of the Labour Code. Can anyone in this House say that the process we are following, which would make a significant change to the code, is either thoughtful or balanced and based on the wishes of the people affected?

For labour legislation to be effective, it must be driven and implemented by the stakeholders, including employers, unions, and the government, through a real consultative process, not by private member's bills that are based solely on political motives.

The question has to be asked: Who do we think is driving the bill? I have talked to labour groups, such as the CLC, and employer groups, such as FETCO, and I can tell the House that it is neither of those groups. They are both saying that the way to make changes to the Labour Code is through consultation and consensus.

Who is driving the bill if it is not the two direct parties involved in this, the two parties whose lives will be changed? Obviously it is those people who care little about what employers and unions in the federal sector want. If my Conservative friends will not listen to me, I hope they will listen to the people who are directly affected by this legislation.

Make no mistake, Bill C-525 makes a substantive change to federal labour laws. It fundamentally changes the rights of workers in how they can unionize, replacing a card check system with a mandatory vote system. However, it is not the standard vote system used by a number of provinces, where a union needs only 50% plus one. Instead, it is a grossly undemocratic process that would count anyone who did not vote as voting no. What democratic principle is that based on?

Their true intentions could not be further from the hollow words they have expressed. Let us be frank. The bill is about one thing and one thing only: discouraging unionization in this country, plain and simple.

Bill C-525 would change the rules for forming and dissolving a union from a majority process to a minority-driven process, making certifying a union more difficult while making decertifying a union easier.

The past decades have witnessed much progress in striking a balance between unions and employers. One of the main reasons is that improvements to labour law, in particular, the Canada Labour Code, have been done within the framework of the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-525 looks to bypass that established process that requires adequate consultation and support of the parties.

Bill C-525 is not wanted by unions or employers in the federal sector. The only ones who want this are my counterparts across the way.

The carefully struck balance in the Labour Code ought not to be taken for granted. There is simply no need to alter what is working well. I challenge the government, I challenge my colleagues across the way, to have the courage to stand up for consensus, balance, and fairness and to vote against the bill.