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.

[John Farrell]

The other issue that we must deal with, of course, is the question of decertification or the revocation of bargaining rights. Under Bill C-525, in the event that the Industrial Relations Board receives a decertification application with 45% support, then the onus would shift to the union to prove, in a secret ballot representation vote, that it retains the support of a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit as opposed to the majority of employees casting a secret ballot vote in favour of decertification. The standard for decertification proposed in Bill C-525 goes beyond an acceptable norm. FETCO believes that the decertification process should require a vote of 50% plus one of the employees in the bargaining unit who cast their secret ballot votes.

For both certification and decertification, FETCO believes that the threshold in order to call a vote should be somewhere between 40% and 45%.

In sum, obviously, Bill C-525 poses a genuine dilemma for FETCO.

It pits the long-held and consistent view that employers in the federal jurisdiction prefer a secret ballot vote for certification over a card check system against our strongly held view that the legislative process of using private members' bills to change labour legislation without the opportunity for genuine pre-legislative consultation is the wrong approach.

[John Farrell, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

FETCO consists of most of the major companies in the federal jurisdiction. FETCO members employ approximately 450,000 employees. My comments will cover two main themes: FETCO's concerns regarding the use of private members' legislation to amend the Canada Labour Code, and our specific recommendations regarding Bill C-525.

First, FETCO has serious concerns regarding the use of private members' bills to amend the Canada Labour Code. The preamble to the code notes that one of the purposes of the code set out by Parliament is:

...to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all;

Good labour relations and constructive bargaining practices promote stability and limit conflict and the economic impact of conflict in the federal jurisdiction, which provides critical infrastructure services to Canadian business and Canadians.

Over the years this preamble has been given practical application through the support of successive governments, by putting in place an effective consultation process covering labour relations in the federal jurisdiction by engaging employers, unions, and government. This process ensures that fact-based and informed decisions are taken with respect to federal law and regulations. FETCO believes that this consultation model has permitted federally regulated employers to successfully advance the interests of its members and has contributed to both the stability and the economic well-being of these important sectors to the Canadian economy.

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.

We believe that the use of private members' bills sets the federal jurisdiction on a dangerous course, where, without adequate consultation or support, unnecessary or unworkable proposals come into law, and the balance, which is so important to the stability of labour relations, is upset. We strongly believe that it is not in the long-term best interests of Canadian employers and their employees, and it has the potential to needlessly impact the economy by destabilizing the basic foundation of union-management relations. Again, it is our view that federal employers can only adequately represent their interests and those of the economy to which they contribute, through the consultation process that has been the practice in the federal jurisdiction.

In sum, FETCO believes that Bill C-525, as currently drafted, will disrupt the widely respected and stable process through the labour law reform, which has traditionally been developed at the federal level. The use of private members' bills as a method of labour law reform may create a situation in which the pendulum will swing between labour law extremes, as successive federal governments with different political perspectives attempt to reverse their predecessors' reforms. This will create labour relations instability.

FETCO believes that the consultative process in place in the federal sector will ensure that the principles established in the code's preamble, noted above, are best and truly served.

I can elaborate in more detail, Mr. Chair, on a process that we would propose and I will cover that if time permits. I would also be prepared to cover that in the question period.

Now I want to turn our attention to Bill C-525, in particular.

The major issue, of course, is the question of certification/decertification of employees under the code. It appears that under the system proposed by Bill C-525, the Canada Industrial Relations Board could only issue a certification order if a majority of bargaining unit employees actually vote in favour of union representation. This is a standard that does not conform to the democratic norm in Canada. It requires amendment.

FETCO members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card check system for the purpose of determining if a union acquires the right to be a certified bargaining agent for the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.

It is FETCO's view that, in order for a union to become the certified bargaining agent for an appropriate bargaining unit, fully 50 % plus one of the employees in the unit who cast secret ballot votes must vote in favour of union representation. The vote should be conducted by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

We believe that this is the most appropriate democratic process. It allows employees to express their true wishes by secret ballot without undue influence or disclosure of how they choose to cast their ballot. This is the mechanism that is used for the electoral process in Canada for good reason. This is the fairest process that permits all employees to express their true wishes. Indeed, that is how most unions conduct their own ratification votes.

Furthermore, the certification process by means of a secret ballot vote exists in many of the jurisdictions in Canada, namely: Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress and its 3.3 million members, we want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views regarding the private member's bill, Bill C-525.

The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with our provincial and territorial federations of labour and our 130 labour councils across the country. Our members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy within occupations including workers under federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-525 makes three significant changes to the current certification process in Canada: one, it adds an unfair, redundant, mandatory vote, giving employers time to interfere with the workers' choice for collective representation; two, it imposes a threshold of 45% to access a certification vote, a threshold that a committee of experts from the International Labour Organization, the ILO, has found to be excessive; three, it proposes that the voting rules require a majority of workers—not voters—to form and retain a union, which is undemocratic. It considers workers who don't vote as casting a “no” vote ballot on the question of having a union. This gives those who don't vote power over those who do.

The CLC is of the opinion that the proposed Bill C-525 will make it virtually impossible to form a new union in the federal jurisdiction. It will thus restrict workers' freedom of association and collective bargaining rights protected by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill politicizes labour relations and starts a dangerous pendulum swing in the federal labour relations regime. It disturbs labour peace in the workplace and will promote confrontation instead of cooperation. It will reduce productivity and increase intimidation from employers while costing business and the federal government. It will give an undemocratic right to a minority of workers to dissolve a union in a workplace and will contradict fundamental principles of our democracy. It will continue the deterioration of working conditions and increase income inequality in Canada.

For all these reasons we call on members of Parliament to defeat this bill.

In support of this bill, MP Calkins makes several claims that members of this committee should examine more closely.

First, Calkins claims that the federal legislation has lagged behind that of our provincial counterparts. This is false. The majority of jurisdictions in Canada use a card-based certification process, with many moving back and forth between card, check, and mandatory vote over many years. This pendulum swing politicizes labour relations between employers and workers and creates instability. We echo the finding of Andrew Sims in the 1995 report examining potential reform to the Canada Labour Code. Sims stated that swings in the labour relations pendulum with successive changes in government will, over time, adversely impact a labour relations system that is working rather well.

Second, MP Calkins claims that the current certification and decertification process has to be changed because it leaves open the opportunity for employees to be intimidated. He refers to a mountain of complaints from workers being intimidated during a certification process. The current federal certification law protects workers against intimidation from other employees, a union, or their employer. A search of CIRB decisions shows no evidence of a mountain of complaints from workers being intimidated during the certification process. In actual fact, most cases of intimidation and unfair labour practice during the certification process involved the employer. Here are two simple but well-publicized examples: retail giant Target showing anti-union videos to employees, and Couche-Tard's CEO video threatening employees with closure and layoffs should they consider unionizing. Amending the certification process will increase the opportunity for intimidation mainly coming from employers.

Third, MP Calkins claims that Bill C-525 will strike a balance in the certification and the decertification process. How does the MP know that these proposed changes in Bill C-525 will achieve the right balance in labour relations? The sponsor of the bill lacks relevant experience in labour relations. Labour relations between employers and workers are very complex in nature.

To be effective, labour relations laws have to reach a balance between the interests of all stakeholders, and this balance is best reached when all parties are involved. Neither employer nor worker groups has called for changes to the certification and revocation process. They have not been consulted by MP Calkins for these proposed changes.

The current federal labour regime works relatively well. Since 2005-06, 85% of certification processes mandated by the CIRB, Canada Industrial Relations Board, were conducted without a secret ballot vote.

Finally, MP Calkins called for more democracy, but the bill does not respect two elements of our democratic system: the principle of political equality, by giving people who don't vote the power of those who do, and the principle that the greatest number of votes is required to win the election.

The fact that the voting rules proposed under Bill C-525 require the majority of workers, not voters, as a threshold for having a union is unfair, hypocritical, and undemocratic. If it passes, the outrageous part of this bill is it will require a union to gain more than the majority of votes. It will do this because it will consider workers who don't bother to vote as casting a "no" ballot on whether to have a union. This will arbitrarily assign a position to those who don't vote, giving them power over those who do.

Furthermore, if the proposed bill passes, an employer could simply find ways to convince employees not to attend the vote. It would then be safe to assume that all those who attended the vote support the union. Such a process defeats the entire rationale for a secret ballot and encourages employers to intimidate and commit unfair labour relations against workers.

Even worse and more hypocritical, the proposed section 96 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act will decertify a union if only 45% of employees in a bargaining unit have not voted in favour of continued representation. Again this rejects the general principle favoured by our democratic society that winning the most votes is required to win an election.

In conclusion, we urge the federal government to stop the introduction of one-off changes to the Canada Labour Code. Amendments should not be made through private members' bills. They should be made with concerted, pre-legislative consultation that engages employers, unions, and government. Bill C-525 is tampering with the labour relations system that has worked very well for many decades in the federal jurisdiction.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Committee, I call us back into session and welcome everyone back to consideration of Bill C-525.

For the next hour and a half, we have a full panel of witnesses who have joined us to provide testimony.

From the Canadian Labour Congress we have Mr. Hassan Yussuff, secretary-treasurer, and Mr. Chris Roberts, senior researcher for the social and economic policy department.

From the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, or FETCO, we have Mr. John Farrell, executive director.

From the Public Service Alliance of Canada we have Ms. Robyn Benson, national president; Ms. Magali Picard, regional executive vice-president for Quebec; and Ms. Shannon Blatt, legal officer.

Appearing as an individual we have Mr. George Smith, fellow and adjunct professor at Queen's University. Also appearing from Queen's University, by video conference as an individual, we have Mr. Kevin Banks, assistant professor, from the Faculty of Law.

Finally, from the Department of Employment and Social Development we have Mr. Anthony Giles, director general for the labour program, strategic policy, analysis and workplace information directorate.

I will now turn the floor over to our witnesses and remind them that we'd like them to keep their remarks to seven minutes in length. I will be indicating the time and cutting you off at that point, given the large number of witnesses we have today and that we want to leave time for questioning.

Perhaps we could start with Mr. Yussuff from the Canadian Labour Congress.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome. This is meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today is Tuesday, February 11, 2014, and we are beginning our consideration of 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). The short title is the employees' voting rights act.

For the first half-hour of our meeting today, we are joined by the bill's mover, Mr. Blaine Calkins, member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin, to give his eight-minute presentation and to answer any questions from our committee about the bill.

We now turn the floor over to Mr. Calkins for his presentation.

Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-523, presented as a private member's bill from the NDP. The Liberals have actually been calling for the Conservative government to implement mandatory reporting of drug shortages since 2011, and with luck, we will finally see this move forward.

This legislation is quite simple in that it mandates that a supplier, be it a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or importer of drugs, notify the Minister of Health of any planned interruption of the production, distribution, or importation of a drug at least six months in advance. Failure to do this would be punishable via summary conviction and a fine of not more than $1.8 million. Any unexpected interruption would have to be reported to the minister as soon as possible or the supplier would face a summary conviction and fine of not more than $10,000 per day from the day the offence is committed, up to a maximum of $1.8 million.

Moreover, under the terms of this legislation, if a supplier is planning to cease production, distribution, or importation, the minister must be informed at least 12 months in advance or face a summary conviction and fine of not more than $1.8 million.

The minister must develop a plan—and this is important—in conjunction with the provinces and territories to prevent and address drug shortages, inform patients and health care providers, and prepare and implement any emergency response plan to address any shortage of a drug. I said that is important because the record of the government, in terms of doing anything in a co-operative way with the provinces, is that this seems almost foreign to it. This might all sound complicated, but in reality, the bill is simply calling on industry to keep government informed when a specific drug might become scarce, so appropriate planning can be undertaken.

Why was the bill proposed in the first place? Simply put, it was proposed in response to the ongoing shortage of medically necessary drugs across Canada. In the past, the Conservatives have asked drug companies to collect and post information regarding pending shortages on public websites to help health care professionals adjust treatment plans in a timely fashion. However, this is a voluntary reporting system and does not compel drug companies to disclose any information. As the case last year with Sandoz Canada has shown us, this can lead to significant harm to the health of Canadians who depend on necessary medication. We need to address this to prevent problems in the future. Many MPs in their own constituencies have had constituents come in to talk about shortages of drugs, which may have affected their health.

In the fall of 2011, following the Liberal round table on drug shortages, we recommended that Health Canada should establish a team within Health Canada to anticipate, identify, and manage drug shortages, similar to the 11-person team established by U.S. President Obama at the U.S. FDA. The government has not shown any such leadership, however.

Canada's government must institute a mandatory drug shortage reporting system, which would require manufacturers to list unavailable medications and to develop early warning systems that could highlight potential drug shortages, so health ministers, medical professionals, and patients would be notified as soon as possible. It is the responsible and prudent thing to do. Ensuring a safe supply of essential drugs is a key responsibility of the federal government, but it is a responsibility that the Conservative government has not taken seriously.

Shortages of essential drugs needed for common health issues and procedures are not a new problem, nor is the problem limited to Canada. It is a global problem that demands real action. For nearly three years, community hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies across Canada have been experiencing serious shortages in common medications, including those used for cancer care, heart problems, epilepsy, pain control, and surgical procedures. The federal government has had plenty of warning about the situation but has consistently failed to take action.

Members do not have to take my word for it. The Canadian Pharmacists Association sounded the alarm on shortages three years ago. It noted that 90% of pharmacists face drug shortages each week when filling prescriptions and that these shortages have become worse over time. The Canadian Pharmacists Association asked for the health committee to study the issue urgently and to ensure that this issue is on the agenda of the World Health Assembly meeting in May.

For our part, on two separate occasions at the health committee, August 2011 and again in November, the Liberals demanded that an investigation be launched into the shortages. However, all of these warnings yielded nothing but silence from the government. Members know how these committees work. They go in camera, they are basically shut down, government members vote against the motion, and the public does not know what happened.

As I have already mentioned, in the fall of 2011, the Liberals held a round table on drug shortages with drug experts from across the country. The recommendations that emerged from this were clear. Strong federal action was required to address current and future drug shortages.

In the face of these concerns, the Conservatives have done next to nothing. Their wilful disengagement and abandonment of meaningful responsibility for the shortages has worsened the problem. Rather than real action, the Conservatives brought in a toothless, voluntary drug shortage reporting system, which does not force pharmaceutical companies to report drug shortages, as is required in countries like France and the United States. In its first test case with Sandoz Canada, the voluntary system utterly failed to provide provincial health authorities with advanced warning of a shortage. The company's drug production problems were known months before, but provinces were only notified in late February, leaving the provinces no time to create contingency plans. The previous minister of health herself admitted that the voluntary reporting system was a flop.

The Liberals believe that a mandatory national drug shortage reporting system is required, and today we are backing up that belief with our votes. This reporting system should require drug manufacturers to list unavailable medications and to develop early warning systems that could highlight potential drug shortages, so that health ministers, medical professionals, and patients are notified as soon as possible. The provinces are asking for this and health stakeholders are asking for this, yet the Conservatives ignore their calls and continue to support a failed system that is putting Canadian lives at risk.

I call on members opposite. The backbench members opposite are not members of the executive council. They can act independently, on their own. They do not need to take direction from the departments and from cabinet. They can stand up for citizens on their own. I hold those backbench members responsible for the fact that some of my constituents are seeing drug shortages. It is because the government failed to act and the backbenchers failed to stand up in their own right for their constituents.

In conclusion, the government's approach has clearly been reckless and shortsighted. However, hope is not lost. If members would stand up and do the right thing and support Bill C-523, we would at least have somewhat of a start in dealing with this problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm going to have to make a call on this, and I'm going to say that it's out of order at this point. I think it doesn't relate to today's discussion of extending the time period of our study of Bill C-525. It deals more with witness selection and witness preferences.

I'm going to say that it would require a 48-hour notice, Mr. Cuzner, to put that motion to the committee at this point in time.

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

Just on the business at hand, I would put the motion that the committee invite officials from the Canada Industrial Relations Board to appear as witnesses to answer questions regarding the implementation and administration of Bill C-525, that we call them as officials.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Yes sorry, it was a pregnant pause.

I really appreciate the facilitation of a discussion of this motion this morning. As you know, we have a critical study coming before us as a result of legislation that's going to be going through the House, and that is a study on Bill C-525. I'm not going to read the whole name out again. This is a bill that is going to have a significant impact on how unions or workers organize, and how they decertify.

For me, when we only allocated two and half hours for witnesses, it just wasn't enough. This is not a bill that is just housekeeping. I see this as a major overhaul of the Labour Code, and as a result I believe we need to give it the due time. As we know, when we look at private members' bills when we are in the House, there is very limited debate on these bills. That's why we have the committee stage, because at the committee stage we get to hear from witnesses, we get to examine the bill in depth, and then we do clause-by-clause and go through looking at amendments. Here, in three and a half hours, we're going to do the clause-by-clause amendments and hear from the witnesses.

I'm really appealing to all sides of the table, especially across the way from me, that there is no need to rush this through committee. I'm urging that everybody see the wisdom of us taking our time to make sure that we do justice to this piece of legislation.

I also want to say, look, the government has the majority, and at the end of the day they will get their will anyway. But to allow for this fulsome discussion will actually give different perspectives, different points of views to be heard—and some of us around the table might even change our minds as a result of that—and end up with a piece of legislation that will serve Canada well. So I really urge full support for this, and I know that in order for this to happen I need the support of my colleagues across the way. It's a new year, and you being very reasonable people, I know you're going to say, “Yes, Jinny.”

Thank you.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I apologize to the witnesses, but this is a critical motion I want to get on the floor. The motion is:That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities add five (5) more full two-hour meetings to the study of 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).

Income Tax Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to this bill amending the Income Tax Act to deal with travel and accommodation deductions for tradespersons.

It is no surprise that this legislation comes from my colleague and friend, the member for Hamilton Mountain. Nickel Belt and Hamilton have much in common besides their good sense in electing New Democrats to the House of Commons.

My colleague has been tireless in her support and advocacy for working men and women. Like her, I understand the extraordinary contributions made by tradespeople for our economy and our communities. People in Hamilton and Nickel Belt get this.

Like her, I know the extraordinary contributions unions make in the fight for justice, fair wages, pension protection of workers, and so much more. Examples are the Edgar Burton food drive in Sudbury, led by local 6500 USW, and the building of the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, which was driven by all union members in Sudbury and Nickel Belt.

Unlike the government opposite, we on this side respect the union movement and the role unions play in building our communities and our country. The Conservatives proved last night, by supporting Bill C-525, how they feel about unions.

This is a reasonable proposal before the House today. It would allow tradespersons and apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable incomes so that they could secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres away from their homes.

I worked for a mining company for 34 years as a tradesman. I know the importance of the trades and the need, from time to time, for those skilled labourers to travel great distances to projects in other parts of the province or country.

Sitting these past two years on the natural resources committee, I understand the demand for skills in these major oil and mining projects and the likelihood of our workers travelling great distances to secure these jobs. This is an issue that is going to become increasingly important in our country.

This bill will help our working people and their families. The Canadian building and construction trades have been asking for this legislation for over 30 years. They got a lot of words from successive Liberal and Conservative governments, but no action.

Let us think about taking this reasonable small step in helping these tradespeople and our economy.

Construction workers cannot claim their travel or accommodation expenses when they accept jobs in other parts of the province or country. Building and trades officials report that the average expenses to relocate can be about $3,500. Some cannot afford to pay those expenses knowing that they cannot get a tax credit for them.

The member for Hamilton Mountain has done her homework on making this a win-win situation for everyone. It would solve the challenges in our regions where one area suffers from high unemployment while another suffers from temporary skilled labour shortages. Let us help the skilled workers get to where they need to be.

This legislation is even revenue neutral, given the savings that would happen in employment insurance benefits. The government has trouble figuring this out.

I have a response to a petition I submitted last month that was in favour of Bill C-201. The government calls this bill costly and flawed. The government insults workers, claiming that this tax relief could be open to much abuse, with moves done for lifestyle decisions rather than for work.

Any tax credit is, of course, open to abuse and requires safeguards and monitoring, which the Canada Revenue Agency is supposed to provide. It is not that difficult to confirm that a move has been made to take a skilled job that has not been filled.

The government response also alleges that certain individuals might receive a windfall gain and would have incurred ineligible travel and accommodation expenses in any case. I do not know who they were thinking about when they made these comments. It was probably Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau, Harb, and Lavigne. These people I named are not tradesmen. They are professional fraudsters. They are senators.

It is not difficult to make clear what an eligible expense is and who qualifies.

The CRA is also there to investigate any double-dipping.

This is also a win-win for the employers, giving them access to much larger pools of qualified workers. We need to act when we look at this country's demographics, including the baby boom generation, the numbers to retire in the next 10 years, and the statistics on shortage of skilled workers.

This bill has been introduced in every parliamentary session since 2006. It was part of the NDP's election platforms in 2008 and 2011. What we want is simple. The bill would allow tradespersons and apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so that they can secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres away from their home.

These mobile workers across Canada continue to have to worry about maintaining a residence and their family, while spending their own money to travel in order to find work. The tax credit would cover the cost of travel, meals and accommodation and reduce the amounts paid by employers for the same things. The 2008 budget offered a similar break to truck drivers in order to reduce problems associated with mobility in that industry.

I remember what the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department director, Robert Blakely, said at the 2012 pre-budget consultations:

We have spaces for nearly 2,500 people to enter the construction industry in the next five years, and another 163,000 people in the five years after that. It's an industry that is going to change. If we have trained people all across the country, we need to be able to move them.

There are an estimated 1.6 million construction workers in Canada. An estimated 10% of them travel each year. This legislation is even revenue neutral, given the savings that would happen in employment insurance payments.

The government has trouble figuring this out. The government needs to do the real math, not the nonsense of estimating the cost of the bill at $60 million per year.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion 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.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #46

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to stand accurately in my place and give the right of reply to the debate at second hour reading of my bill, the employees' voting rights act.

First of all, allow me to thank all of my colleagues, not only from this side of the House, but throughout the House, for their valuable input into this legislation.

It is absolutely crucial that we have a discussion about this. As I said in my previous speech, constituents have brought concerns about the fairness of the process to my attention, and they were the reason for me bringing this legislation forward. I would like to thank them for their courage in coming forward and telling me about this, understanding the kinds of repercussions that they would face from their union leaders if it were ever found out that they had spoken to me about these kinds of things.

Notwithstanding that, I would like to dismiss some of the allegations that we have heard in the House. I have heard opposition members say that no member of Parliament would ever get elected at the thresholds that were set for this.

I would like to remind all hon. members that the threshold for union certification is 50% plus 1 in a card check system. My legislation proposes the very same threshold, but through a secret ballot vote. If it can be done through card check certification, why could it not be done through a secret ballot vote? That is a question that nobody arguing against my bill is prepared to answer. They do not want to answer the question because they know that the fear, intimidation, and the other tactics employed in a union certification drive will come to light and that is something to which they simply do not want to expose themselves.

I have heard from other members over here, saying that the same threshold does not apply to members of Parliament, as it does in this particular case. Well, at least I face a secret ballot vote, as all of my colleagues do in the House, when it comes to making the determination.

The red herring in the mix is the fact that a yes/no question is a referendum question, which is what my bill is actually dealing with, not a first past the post system, which we currently have when we vote for members of Parliament. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that someone in a 5- or 6-way race would get 50% plus 1 of the votes. It is a complete red herring and, quite frankly, it is an illogical argument being prepared by the other side. However, I am happy to report that in one of my elections, I did get 50% plus 1, notwithstanding the votes for the opposition and the folks who refrained from voting. I owe that to the good common sense of the people back home in the riding of Wetaskiwin.

In closing, I would also like to draw out some of the other misinformation that was here. I have heard it said that this bill is not in line with Quebec values. We know from polling results that when we ask Canadians across the country whether they would like to have a secret ballot vote during the certification and decertification process of a union, the answer is overwhelmingly always in the 80% range. I have not seen a poll at less than 80% or 82%. In fact, the numbers are actually higher in Quebec, and when we ask current or former union members, that percentage is even higher.

My legislation, as it is proposed in principle, is completely onside with the values that Canadians hold dear. They want a secret ballot vote. These workers deserve an opportunity to determine what is in their best interests. Whether or not the union can make the pitch, whether or not they can provide better services for those workers, and whether or not the employer can make that pitch, the workers have every right to decide what is in their best interests, and the best interests of their families, insofar as what they choose to do and where they want to work.

I would encourage all members to stand in this place at the second reading vote on this bill and show, through their democratic right in this House, whether they actually believe in democracy.

Does the New Democratic Party actually mean the “No Democratic Party”, with no democracy unless it suits the party's needs? We will find out.

I know that my colleagues on this side of the House will support my legislation, or I am at least very hopeful that they will. Let us get this bill to committee and hear from the stakeholders at the committee stage. The government has indicated that it is looking at amendments to the bill. I am okay with that as long as we keep the true spirit and intention of the bill, which is to ensure that we have a democratic and mandatory secret ballot vote during the certification and decertification process.

That is in the best interests of Canadians. It is in the best interests of our society. It is in the best interests from a public policy perspective.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-525, the employees' voting rights act. This bill is about a very simple principle in Canadian democracy, the right for people to vote freely, in this case on whether they wish to belong to a union. I would like to thank my colleague and the very hard-working hon. member for Wetaskiwin for raising such an important issue in this House.

What is the employees' voting rights act all about? It is about ensuring free choice for employees to decide whether they wish to be represented by a union. We use secret ballots when people vote during federal, provincial or municipal elections. Why should we not apply the same principle when employees have to decide if they want to belong or cease to belong to a union? Furthermore, if a major union chooses its own leaders through a secret ballot, why should the same principle not apply to its membership? This is the purpose of the employees' voting rights act. It would amend the union certification and decertification voting rules in federally regulated workplaces to ensure secret ballot votes in all cases.

Why is it necessary to change these rules? The current card check system does not guarantee that employees' intentions are reflected, nor does it ensure that all employees have the ability to express their own views. Employees should have the right to a fair process that is fully democratic. These voting rules need to be modernized accordingly. A secret ballot would afford employees the important opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of joining a union. No one can disagree with the fundamental principle that secrecy is vital when it comes to any kind of voting. It protects the voters' freedom. It protects employees from the scrutiny of fellow colleagues, union organizers and employers. Is that not what democracy is all about?

I hear members on the opposite side claiming that this bill would not be fair to workers, so let us talk about fairness. How fair is the current process? In some cases under the existing system, unions can obtain certification despite a sizable portion of their membership not expressing themselves at all. In short, their opinion does not matter. For example, if 52% of employees sign a union card, the union certification is automatically granted. This means that the remaining 48% may not have been consulted or expressed themselves on such an important issue. The decision to form or decertify a collective bargaining unit is far too important an issue to be taken lightly. The employees' voting rights act would put an end to automatic certification.

Bill C-525 would not take away any rights from employees; on the contrary, it would empower employees. They would still have the right to be unionized if the majority of workers in their workplace want to be unionized. To ensure this decision is taken in a fair and democratic fashion, this bill would establish mandatory secret ballots in all federally regulated workplaces in regard to union certification or decertification. With this system, co-workers would not know how other workers voted, union representatives would not know how they voted, and the employer would not know how they voted. That would give employees the freedom to vote the way they want to and have their opinion heard, while maintaining their privacy.

I am sure everyone in this House would agree that privacy in voting is paramount in the democratic process. A secret ballot would simply guarantee that workers would cast their vote away from the pressures of others, and after the needed time, to consider their options. Let us face it: a secret ballot is the only way to ensure that the views of all employees are taken into consideration. If unions have the support of the majority of workers, they should have no concerns whatsoever about confirming this support through a secret vote.

Our government will continue working to ensure that federally regulated workplaces in Canada remain productive, safe, and fair. We will continue our quest to create jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

I truly hope that my fellow MPs will understand that the employees' voting rights act serves both workers and employers. This is why I strongly urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-525, so that we can receive input from key stakeholders in committee.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to comment on private member's 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), I cannot help but feel a little angry.

Actually, that is an understatement. I am very angry. When someone tries to amend the Canada Labour Code, we expect the proposed measures to improve problematic situations at least a little. In this case, the bill is yet another attack on an institution that has proven its worth and has made a significant contribution to ensuring quality of life for its members and, by extension, many workers in our society. That institution is the union movement.

I do not know what the unions can possibly have done for the government to treat them like this, but as a former president of a teachers' union in my riding, I will always stand up to fight for the fundamental rights of workers.

This private member's bill is clearly part of the government's agenda. There is no way this just happened by accident.

If this bill passes, it would be a first. As far as I know, changes to labour relations legislation have never been introduced via a private member's bill. Governments that do things properly and truly want to improve labour relations do not feel the need to slip changes in through the back door. They stand up in the House, introduce a bill and put it through the legislative process.

In the past, changes to the Canada Labour Code have come about following discussions between employers and workers, not when an MP stands up to say that he has made the discovery of the century.

That being said, what makes me most angry is the fact that I cannot pretend I am surprised. Since its inception, the union movement has come under constant attack, and that is still happening today.

Worse still, the changes this bill proposes are a direct attack on our democratic rules because they would establish a separate system that applies only to unions. Let us take a closer look at the changes proposed in this work of genius, Bill C-525.

Two processes would be undermined: the certification and decertification of unions in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. For now, this applies only to workplaces under federal jurisdiction.

Let us start with the process of union certification. Normally, when employees in a workplace decide to organize in order to establish a union, they discuss things with their colleagues with a view to presenting the benefits of association when the time comes to negotiate working conditions, for example, or a first collective agreement. They then invite them to sign a membership card if the union's objectives are in line with their expectations.

The union then files an application for certification with the Canada Labour Relations Board. If the application fulfills the requirements of the Canada Labour Code and if 50% of the members have signed a card, the union is automatically certified.

However, there is a second possibility. If between 35% and 50% of the members have signed a card, the Canada Labour Relations Board organizes a vote of the employees to determine the future of the potential union. A majority vote means that a union organization can be formed in that workplace.

Now here is the low point of the evening, the appalling proposal in Bill C-525. First, for the Canada Labour Relations Board to hold a vote, it will now require a minimum of 45%, not 35%, of the workers in the company. It gets even worse. When the vote is held, a majority of the entire bargaining unit—not 50% + 1 of the members at the meeting—must vote for the creation of the union. In other words, all those who do not vote would be deemed to have voted against a union being formed. Now we are playing with people's heads and telling them what to think when they are absent. If this is not vote-rigging, I really wonder what it is.

For a moment, let us imagine that, in the 2011 federal election, we had counted the votes of everyone who did not get out to vote as a vote against the re-election of the Conservative government. I am sure that the Conservative ranks would be up in arms. However, in this case, since it is about organizing a union, to hell with democracy; let us go for it.

If that were not enough, the process works in reverse for decertifying a union. The new rules would require a majority of the members of the certified unit to vote in favour of keeping their union representation. They would also require that everyone who did not vote be deemed to have voted for revocation. That effectively means that we are forging the signatures of people who are not there.

The bill would also require that 55% of members vote in favour of union representation in order to prevent decertification. Clearly, the concept of 50% plus one is light years away from Conservative thinking. That might explain why this government has such a hard time taking a position on the Quebec issue.

To continue with my analogy, this new directive would mean that all those who did not vote during the last federal election in 2011 would be added to those who voted for an opposition party, and therefore the Conservative government would be required to clear the government benches. In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but that does not seem to be the case here.

I know very few MPs in the House who would be able to meet such pseudo-democratic standards under this approach. The purpose of Bill C-525 is to manipulate union elections and make it practically impossible for workers to form a union.

To add insult to injury, this attack comes in addition to the one in Bill C-377. That is the real story behind this anti-democratic bill that reflects a Conservative, even Republican, ideology that has nothing to do with Canadian and Quebec values.

This bill is also economically counterproductive because it helps widen the income inequality gap, accelerates the downward spiral of middle-class wages, and creates work environments fostering conflict between managers and workers.

Unions have always contributed to improving working conditions, wages, and health and safety standards, not just for unionized employees but also for all other workers, by extension. However, it is no secret that this government is resolutely anti-union.

I remember one of my first debate experiences in the House, when we were discussing the Canada Post dispute. With the support of the current government, Canada Post locked out its employees, but the government kept saying that the employees were striking.

If the government truly wanted to reflect greater neutrality when it comes to employer-employee relations, it could have proposed something much better. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to expand on that.

In closing, the House can count on my presence to firmly oppose this bill. I urge all members of the House to review the bill very carefully and ask themselves whether this is the kind of democracy they want for our country. By the way, there are not multiple kinds of democracy—one for politics, one for unions and one for community organizations. The “Code Morin” and the 50% plus one rule exist for everyone, and the rules work.

While we await that day in October 2015 when Canadians will choose a new government, every worker in this country can count on the NDP to defend their interests. We are the only party that can embody the “working together” slogan, which so many people can identify with, and we embody it for the simple reason that it is part of our DNA in the NDP.