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.

Canada Labour Code

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party to speak about this important bill, which we should all agree is a bad bill.

The bill we are dealing with today in the House of Commons is a direct attack on the basic principles that all Canadians share. This bill is an attack on democracy, accountability, and transparency.

The first bill that the Conservative government introduced under the former prime minister had to do with transparency. The first bill that this government has introduced is an attack on union transparency.

My question is quite clear. Yesterday the Prime Minister said, in answering a question I asked him, that Bill C-525 is undemocratic. Can the minister explain to this House how it could be undemocratic to have a secret-ballot vote?

[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.

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?

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.

Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. We are trying to get him on his feet early in the session today. He is a little nervous, but with the support of his colleagues and the entire chamber, maybe we will get him up to say a few words.

As I said in my question for the minister, this debate gives us the opportunity to speak to the broader question, which is the continued growth in the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Since the Conservatives have taken over, we have seen a 66% increase in the number of Canadians who work for minimum wage. One million Canadians now work for minimum wage.

This should be of great concern to all of us. The quality of life for Canadians who go to work day in day out for the entire year and still live close to the poverty line should be of great concern to us as legislators, as members of Parliament.

To speak specifically about the motion brought forward by the NDP today, when we boil down the numbers, it does not really represent or impact a great number of people. It is more symbolic than substantive, and I would like to make a couple of comments around that.

According to the 2010 Statistics Canada survey of employees in federal jurisdictions, there are about 820,000 federal employees out of the 17 million who work in our country. According to that study, just 416 employees within federal jurisdiction earn the legal minimum wage, with 44% of these employees in companies with 100 or more employees. With 416 Canadians out of a workforce of 17 million, when we put that in perspective, again, the motion is a symbolic gesture more so than substantive.

I think we could engage in a debate that would impact more Canadians, because a number of Canadians continue to struggle from day to day, from paycheque to paycheque. This is a reality in a lot of kitchens across the country.

There was an all-committee study both in the House of Commons and the Senate. When we look at the recommendations those committees put forward on how to deal with and address poverty, some of them would have impacted a far greater number of Canadians, and probably would have helped a greater number of Canadians and Canadian families.

We should be looking at why the government has not been able to invest in developing the high-quality jobs and training opportunities, and why we continue to see that increase of people working in low-wage, precarious jobs.

After being home all summer, and I am sure many of the members in the House here would have heard the same story, I heard from seniors and those getting close to their senior years. They had seen the change in the OAS. Those who have worked their entire life in low-wage precarious jobs see the increase in the eligibility age for OAS from 65 to 67 as significant.

The opportunity to expand the reach and benefit of the levels of the working income tax benefit would go a far greater distance in helping a greater number of people. However, I see this as somewhat of a symbolic gesture. There has to be some type of balance in policy that upholds a societal benefit.

I agree that we need some kind of balance. I thought the proposal that was put forward by our leader yesterday on the hiring benefit that would allow us $1,280 for every hire, which for $225 million could produce 176,000 new jobs, would benefit business and Canadian workers. Those are more substantive issues that could be brought forward and could have a greater impact.

What we try to strive for, certainly within our party, is balance in labour relations. I do not think there has been any government in the history of the country that has thrown the balance between labour and management out of whack more so than the current government, from the excessive use of back to work legislation through changes to the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are pretty much outright attacks on organized labour. One of the keys to balancing labour relations is to have a fair process both by labour and management to have an opportunity to work out issues. For over 30 years, a tripartite approach has been in place.

In 2004, when we were still in government, the Liberal government used such a process for the review of part III of the Canada Labour Code undertaken by Harry Arthurs. His consultation process included direct input from labour and management representatives, cross-country public meetings, hearing from 171 different presentations and 154 formal briefings. He talked with management, with organized labour and community-based organizations. He talked to labour standard administrators and practitioners. That process resulted in Mr. Arthurs making a number of recommendations that maybe everyone might not have agreed on but at least they respected a balanced process.

One such recommendation, and the one that we are talking about today, was the reinstatement of the federal minimum wage rate. On the basis of his consultations with all stakeholders and the research, Mr. Arthurs believed that a federal minimum wage was justified. He captured the essence of a federal minimum wage in this comment, which I will read into the record. He stated:

—the argument over a national minimum wage is not about politics or economics. It is about decency. Just as we reject most forms of child labour on ethical grounds, whatever their economic attractions, we recoil from the notion that in an affluent society like ours good, hard-working people should have to live in abject poverty.

This motion deals only with federal workers and workers in federal industries. Therefore, those who are watching at home should know that this does not apply to those who work in the service industry flipping burgers or making beds, those in one of the million minimum wage jobs in our country. This applies to a very specific sector. Let us ensure that we temper the excitement and expectation for this motion with respect to an increase in the minimum wage.

What Mr. Arthurs said in his comments stand true. Under the work that he has done and put forward, this motion, although humble, is worthwhile supporting.

Employment

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can forget the Conservatives' employment insurance reform. It would be hard to come up with a more regressive policy. This unfortunate reform has weakened the economy in Quebec, the Maritimes and my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, which is having a hard time getting back on its feet.

It does not end there. Every day, the Conservatives, who are the self-proclaimed job champions, are attacking the rights of Canadian workers and the gains they have made. They are attacking unions, labour-sponsored funds, the public service and local services.

Allow me to provide some examples. Bills C-377 and C-525 were sad attempts at overhauling labour relations in Canada.

Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, was another opportunity for the Conservatives to quietly turns back the clock on decades' worth of struggles for decent working conditions and good jobs.

The cuts to Canada Post will further eat away at local services and wipe out quality jobs for Canadians.

In my riding, workers and unions are clearly saying that the summer will be hot and that the declaration of war issued by the members opposite will not go unanswered.

2015 starts now.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister and officials. It's great to have you here.

Just on the last points that were made, I actually asked the witnesses if they objected to secret ballots and they said no. So that's what we did. We did exactly what the witnesses indicated they had no objection to, with respect to Bill C-525.

I'd like to talk about occupational health and safety, Minister, if we can. You did say in your presentation that from 2007 to 2011 the number of disabling injuries for all federally regulated sectors declined by 22%. I think that's great. We're moving in the right direction. Having fewer and fewer injuries in the workplace is obviously where we want to be, and the goal is to get to zero, obviously.

Would you be able to explain to the committee what strategies the labour program employs to produce this level of success?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Well, I think the evidence was that you passed the amendments at this committee. Amendments were brought forward because there was a thoughtful, constructive discussion here. I was not present for those discussions. It was a private member's bill. The amendments came forward and they went to the House of Commons as well and were voted on. That's what a free and open democracy does. It considers private member's bills as well as government legislation. Regarding bills that are brought forward by the opposition, I think our government has done a great job of evaluating those things on their merit. Evidence alone is that there have been opposition bills that have been openly supported by our government because they were good public policy.

So as I say, with Bill C-525 it was brought—

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

So Bill C-525—a private member's bill, not government legislation—really focuses on democracy as a fundamental component of Canadian society. Based on feedback from stakeholders, and also from our government and from this committee, key amendments were made to that bill and it moved forward. We live in a free and open democracy. Individuals are elected to the House of Commons. It came to this committee for discussion and debate. Amendments were made to it, which I must say I was very pleased with. Also, I think many people from all parties were pleased. The amendments ensured that all federally regulated workers would have a democratic free right to a fair and secret ballot.

So I strongly encourage people to reflect on—

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

Bill C-525 changes the fundamental way that employees can organize, and the government supported it. Minister, you stood and supported it.

Mr. Calkins' claim at the time was that union organizers can be dismissed if it's a one-off thing, but that they see a mountain of complaints that end up in labour relations. This is concerning. We know, from CIRB, that the “mountain of complaints” was two complaints, out of 4,000 decisions.

Minister, surely you can't see that as a mountain of complaints.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-525, under private members' business.

The question is on Motion No. 1.