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.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. This is the third time I rise in this place to move forward the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and I am frustrated that it has been such a difficult journey to get us to third reading on this legislation.

It is a bill that is only about a dozen pages long and that has been supported by workers and industry. However, it seems to have touched a nerve with the Conservative opposition, so we have had to overcome a massive amount of obstruction to get to this point. Just last week, we faced a voting marathon that took over 12 hours of voting time as resources were taken up with recorded votes forced by the Conservatives. This bill matters, so Liberals did not hesitate to stand up and vote for each one, but let us be clear that the result of that Conservative charade was wasted time and taxpayer resources.

I was not surprised, because this voting marathon was just one more example of the obstruction that we, and I, have faced in this place and at committee. In December, the natural resources committee, on which I sit, faced over 20,000 amendments put forward by the Conservatives, and this was on a bill that is only about 12 pages long. The amendments were not serious proposals, and in all of my years in this place, I have never seen such awful behaviour at committee.

At these meetings, the Conservative members were loud and disruptive, and their tone was like nothing I have ever seen. It was not just a filibuster. That is a normal tool for opposition members. It was repeated, loud yelling of “point of order”, so that nothing could be said or heard. It was filming a video at every point of suspension in pursuit of a social media click and social media videos, rather than in pursuit of getting the policy right.

All of this was while workers from across the country were telling us over and over again that they wanted to see us move forward with the sustainable jobs act and that they wanted the Conservatives to end their obstruction.

At a conference last week, the Conservative energy critic stated that for her, with respect to this bill, a mutual and evidence-based middle ground is not a thing. So much for developing policy on the evidence and for working with each other to get the best results for our communities.

Why does the Conservative Party look to oppose a bill that would empower workers and a bill that acknowledges a need for workers to be at the table as our country charts a path toward a net-zero future? That is what this bill would do. Let me set out quickly what is contained in the sustainable jobs act. It has five parts.

The first part sets out principles guiding a coherent approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help create sustainable jobs, while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to play a leading role in the emerging world of the clean growth industry.

The second part aims to create a sustainable jobs partnership council to provide independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and to engage with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts, including workers, indigenous leaders and industry representatives, are at the table to guide government action.

The third part sets out a requirement to publish action plans every five years, drawing on input from stakeholders and partners as well as expert advice from the sustainable jobs partnership council.

The fourth part is designed to establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action to implement the law across the federal government.

The fifth and final part designates the minister or ministers responsible for implementing the legislation.

Those five things are what have given rise to all of the Conservative furor. This is why they have put up so much time and energy to oppose. That is what it is, legislation that helps workers to seize the opportunities and have a say in how it can be done.

On Thursday, the Minister of Labour asked, if they are not listening to industry or workers, or the environmental community, who are they listening to? That is a good question, because it certainly is not the many who have spoken publicly.

The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals.”

The International Union of Operating Engineers said, “The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.”

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents millions of Canadian workers, said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act signals a crucial milestone in our fight against climate change and the protection of workers' interests. Canada’s unions stand committed to working alongside all stakeholders to ensure effective implementation towards a sustainable and equitable future for all.”

Those statements confirm to me that workers in industry see in the sustainable jobs act an unlocking of opportunities; they see it as a part of our country's commitment to seize global opportunities in sustainable jobs, all the while making sure that workers are at the table as we work together to fight climate change and slow the natural disasters that are impacting our communities through wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other events.

As we strive to reduce the emissions that fuel the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure that our young people have a thriving future in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy.

Both are possible, and they go hand in hand.

All of our communities are feeling these impacts on our clean air, and floods and fires that damage homes, farms and industry. It has been shocking, in this bill's very long journey, to hear the Conservative colleagues from across the way say that they do not believe in climate change. For example, the Conservative MP for Red Deer—Mountain View, during his filibuster of this very bill, claimed that climate change is having no impact on the frequency or severity of wildfires, which is entirely false. The Conservative MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in a newsletter to constituents, simply said that “the global warming gig is up”.

These statements explain why the Conservative Party's plans have been to just let the planet burn. That is not only frightening; it is also out of step with the rest of the world, because the world is looking for clean energy and renewables and to build their businesses in Canada because of our clean electrical grid. These are the opportunities we could seize with the sustainable jobs act.

We have a target to hit net zero, and many subsectors, like cement and electricity, have similar pathways and road maps based on modelling and market trends. All of this means expanding and deploying new technologies using skilled Canadian labour. These range from installing electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, like at Dofasco; finding ways to harness solar and biomass in remote communities, like in Old Crow, Yukon; or using deep-lake cold water from Lake Ontario to cool downtown Toronto's hospitals and buildings through a district energy system operated by Enwave. There are hundreds of examples across this country of innovative projects that are being advanced to create clean power and sustainable jobs.

RBC estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required.

Last summer, I had the chance to talk with people working on wind turbines in Ontario. One of these workers told me how he had chosen to train to work on wind turbines, because he liked the opportunity to be outdoors while doing the technical work he enjoys. He was making a better living, and he was living better.

I met people at George Brown College who are part of a program to provide certification for electric vehicle mechanics. A large percentage of the people who were studying the certification were new to the field of mechanics. One person commented that the workplace for EVs had cleaner air than a traditional shop. Given that my grandfather worked in an autobody shop as a mechanic, Dabrusin Motors, it hits home how no emissions in his shop would have been a much healthier workplace.

On International Women's Day this year, I had the opportunity to join the Millwright Regional Council, AECON and Ontario Power Generation at the graduation of a group women. They had been part of a special program to encourage women to become millwrights, and upon graduation, they were able to get jobs working on the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant. It was inspiring to meet these graduates and the people who had come around them to create this special program.

We are talking about good-paying jobs in nuclear energy, a form of energy that has helped Ontario move away from coal-fired electricity and that is bringing cleaner air to our communities across the provinces. Through the sustainable jobs act, we want to make sure that workers help chart the course to make sure that women, such as those in this graduating class, can find good-paying jobs that are a part of our country's future.

In fact, these are the jobs of our planet's future, and investment is flowing to clean technologies. In 2022 alone, over $2 trillion went to clean technologies globally. This bill would help support coordinating the labour force's development needs in these fast-growing industries. As we rapidly look to expanding Canada's advantage in clean technologies to meet our domestic and global needs, we must also expand the skills and training of Canadians to ensure that high-quality jobs are created here.

I will ask members to allow me to provide two examples of how we are creating sustainable jobs in Canada for Canadian workers and communities while supporting our allies around the world. If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made through a low-carbon manufacturing process, let us attract that investment that helps our workers to fill that gap.

The first example is our nuclear financing agreement with Romania. Romania has been a NATO ally of Canada for 20 years now, and it is strategically placed as a leader in Eastern Europe to supply zero-emissions power to its neighbours with Canadian CANDU reactors at Cernavoda's power station.

Nuclear power and technology is a vital part of Canada's legacy as a tier 1 nuclear nation. We are providing $3 billion in financing to Romania to develop two new CANDU reactors. That is a good deal. It is one that will be paid back with interest, which will flow entirely to Canadian companies. It will create good jobs across Ontario, help Romania to phase out coal several years ahead of schedule and displace Putin's energy blackmail with a steady supply of reliable, zero-emissions power. That is a win for climate action, a win for our allies, for our economy, for workers and for Canada.

The second example is about hydrogen. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources led a delegation to Hamburg, Germany, where Canada became the first country in the world to cement a hydrogen window with the Germans, making the first deal of its kind between any two countries. Part of the reason Vice-Chancellor Habeck had such confidence in Canada is the enormous clean power potential presented by our Atlantic offshore.

As the Minister of Labour mentioned last Thursday, offshore wind power and the hydrogen that it can create represent the largest economic opportunities for the region in a generation. They present us with the potential to economically revitalize entire coastal communities across both provinces. That is an example of strategic investment and partnership being used to create thousands of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers on the path to net zero here and around the world.

If I go back to my frustrations, it has been deeply frustrating. The Conservative members of the natural resources committee have repeatedly talked down the offshore opportunities and stated opposition to Bill C-49, the bill that would allow these offshore wind projects to proceed and create that green hydrogen that is sought after by our allies. These are good opportunities to create good-paying jobs.

We are standing up with provinces to make sure Canadian workers can seize these new opportunities. Workers are at the centre of the sustainable jobs act, and as I have pointed out, unions have strongly supported this bill. When workers organize, they do not just ask more of their employers. They expect more from government too, and that is a good thing. We are advancing replacement worker legislation and investments in union-led training centres because we believe in unions.

Just this weekend, I talked with a unionized worker in my community who was telling me about the importance of his union and his strong support for our replacement worker legislation. He wants a government that supports unionized workers and collective bargaining, and I could assure him that our Liberal government does support those things.

That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative government, in which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister. As a cabinet minister in the Harper government, the Leader of the Opposition championed two of the most anti-union and anti-worker bills the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 was an unconstitutional bill to silence unions by burying them in onerous reporting requirements, including forcing them to show their strike funds to employers, which would weaken the prospect of deals at the bargaining table. Bill C-525 was similarly an attack on workplace democracy, making it very difficult for workers to form unions and easier for the then Conservative government to arbitrarily decertify unions.

In 2017, our government repealed both of these bills, and since then, we have continued to stand up for unions. Despite all of the Conservative games, we have been pushing forward, and we will continue to fight for workers. This is precisely what our sustainable jobs plan and act would deliver.

I will conclude by highlighting the widespread support that exists for this legislation.

First, Equiterre had this to say about the bill: “It is an essential step toward more cohesive climate action and there's absolutely no reason to delay the adoption of this bill. Building a sustainable workforce starts now—not in 2050.”

The executive director of the Pembina Institute stated the following:

Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

A youth-led organization called re-generation said it supports the plan and the bill because:

This Act will help ensure that green jobs are available for anyone who wants one. It will establish a partnership council to directly involve workers and communities in the transition, and allocate critical funding to green skills development and training.

Finally, the vice-president of IBEW International said that, through this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.”

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that would allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

I sincerely hope that every member in the House agrees to choose the first path because, as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure we have a sustainable future and sustainable jobs for future generations.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, today we are in the House fighting for workers and communities in Canada, so we can create sustainable jobs moving forward. We will grow the economy and we will fight climate change. Standing in the way of workers is the Conservative leader, a proud supporter of notorious anti-worker legislation, including Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. His plan for Canada is to cut investments, to let our economy fall behind and to let the planet burn.

Our plan will ensure we are building an economy in which Canadian workers and Canadian communities will win, and we will vote as many times as it takes to get it done.

[Caroline Senneville]

Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525 were both anti-union bills, in our view. They were aimed at making unionization more difficult and, once unions were formed, at reducing their scope of action. In our opinion, this violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, I repeat, guarantees the right of association.

As I said at the outset, Bill C‑58 will indeed transform the world of work and its vision in Canada. That is not insignificant.

In Quebec, the statistics are looked at every year. We saw that after the adoption of anti-scab legislation in 1977, the number of strikes didn't increase. What has decreased is violence and the number of ambulances on picket lines.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

I think if there's ever been an example of a party that doesn't want to talk about legislation, Canadians can see that today. The Conservative Party wants to talk about everything but this legislation. I am not going to talk about how a turkey cost $100 two years ago and I bought one for $35 two weeks ago. I am not going to talk about that.

Ms. Senneville, my question for you is this: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were two stunning pieces of legislation that the Conservative Party brought forth when it was in government that were absolutely detrimental and devastating to unions.

I would like you to talk to us, for the record, about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and tell us what they did to unions. I want you to also comment on Bill C-58 and how important it is. I want you to dispel the myth that unions want to strike.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be splitting my time with Mr. Baker since we might only have one round.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their excellent presentations.

I only have time to ask questions of maybe one, and they will be directed to you, Mr. Strickland.

In my riding of Davenport, I have a lot of members of unions, particularly construction unions. Ever since I was elected just over eight years ago, I've been very focused on them, very focused on their issues.

I will say to you that I'm very proud of our government. Over the last eight years, we've made huge improvements in worker rights and in more supports for unions. We very much started out with actually repealing two pieces of what I would consider very anti-union, anti-worker legislation when we first came in: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Strickland. You have really pushed us to do quite a few things. I want to thank you also.... You were very laudatory today about the labour requirements around ITCs, as well as the funding that we have and the importance that we have in the fall economic statement around apprenticeships. Both are game-changers.

What I want to talk to you about is this: There are also measures in here around breaking down barriers to the internal labour mobility in our country and also around prioritizing construction workers for permanent residency. I would love it if you could comment on both of those. We have already introduced a new labour mobility tax deduction. Again, it's something that you very much championed, but now we're moving to the next phase to remove more barriers to internal labour mobility.

The second part is that we are actually, in our express entry immigration system, prioritizing construction workers. Can you talk about how important both of these elements are to our moving forward on the construction that we need, particularly in housing, across this country?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

Bill C-58 could be said to eclipse Bill C-377 and Bill C-525—pun intended. I really appreciate that.

Ryan, you mentioned the different transportation networks that you wanted to talk about. I'm also on the trade committee. At the trade committee, the longshore people mentioned that they kept using replacement workers and whatnot, and it was really hard to get the employer at the table. This was their testimony. Quite frankly, they felt it prolonged what happened out west, and it shouldn't have.

Would you not agree that the best deals are done at the table, and that we ought to get people at the table consistently? This longshoreman—it was “man” at the time—said they would have to present, and the union would present to the opposite, and they couldn't make decisions because they weren't the employer either. They were representatives. They'd have to go back. It was delaying things forever.

Do you have any comments about that?

[Bea Bruske]

When workers decide to go on strike, it's after a lot of frustration that comes to the fore. I will point out that in many situations where scabs are used, scabs are hired, and paid more than the very workers who are out on strike. That was certainly the case in my home province of Manitoba where there was a liquor control commission strike last year. The employees were making near minimum wage as new hires, whereas scabs were hired at $20 an hour. That is a further frustration that leads to a lot of anger on the picket line.

You mentioned two very egregious pieces of legislation, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Bill C-377 was really designed to ensure that unions were tied up in knots with all kinds of regulations, and reporting their union finances to outside agencies.

Union leaders are democratically elected. Union members have the right to see their financial statements at any given point in time. Union members are elected to boards as trustees. They have regular access to their union statements. They know how their union is spending their money and defending their interests. That was specific in tying unions up with a whole bunch of time, paperwork and energy surrounding the ability to not be able to perform, and not be able to represent their members as well as possible.

Bill C-525 was really designed to limit the amount of unionization within the federal public sector. We know that when you carry a union card in your back pocket, you have a greater chance to be part of Canada's middle class. We want all workers to have the ability to sit at a bargaining table, if they so choose, and be represented by a union to bargain a fair deal.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

That creates a challenge, then. You have replacement workers being brought in. You have workers trying to support their families and themselves while making significantly less, so you can see why some folks wouldn't support using replacement workers when it's challenging workers. I really appreciate you clarifying that for us.

I want to bring up one other thing. The previous government brought in two pieces of legislation which quite frankly the union movement of all stripes said were the most anti-union pieces of legislation that it had seen in forever. They were Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, I believe.

Could you please explain to the committee what they were, and why were they punitive?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Minister O'Regan, thank you for coming.

I have to say that I am virtual, but I am just amazed and dumbfounded when I listen to the Conservative MPs today with this new-found concern for Canadian unions and the working class. It's just amazing. It's a 180° turnaround. They brought forth Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were arguably two of the biggest union-busting bills that we've seen in our history, and we reversed them.

Minister, I want to congratulate you for Bill C-58. It's progressive. It's going to move our country forward. It's historic legislation that's going to help Canadian workers get powerful paycheques.

As we've seen in the House and here in this committee—again, disappointingly so—the Conservative MPs do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

We know what the Leader of the Opposition is about, and what he did was support anti-labour bills. We know that he also supports American-style right-to-work legislation.

Minister, I want you to share with me why you think the Conservative MPs today do not want to talk about Bill C-58.

Thank you.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for his continued advocacy for Canadian workers. Indeed, the best deals are made at the bargaining table.

However, when Canadian workers see Conservative politicians like the members for Battlefords—Lloydminster, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Louis-Saint-Laurent parrot corporate talking points, they know that the Conservative Party of anti-union bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, is still alive and kicking.

Canadians will not be fooled by the Conservative leader caving to pressure after a steady 19-year political career opposing unions.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

I know Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 caused a lot of damage in the relationship between the federal government and working men and women across the country. They were undermining unions and making it difficult for them to form and forcing them to show their cards financially at a pivotal time at a negotiating table. Anyway, we ripped them up.

I look to Mr. Aitchison, because when we were working on 10 paid days of sick leave, we got unanimous consent. I think things have changed demonstrably in this country. I think we have a significant labour shortage and I think all parties recognize this, but we have gone the extra mile for workers because we sit down and we listen to them. We listen to what they have to say. We have a union-led advisory table, for instance, that is coming up consistently with good ideas, and they are the ones who know their membership.

A lot of the membership have significant concerns right now about artificial intelligence and about automation, but one thing they have asked for since before Canada even became a country was a ban on replacement workers, for anti-scab legislation, and we're going to deliver on that. I have sat down at very difficult negotiations with employers and with unions trying to sort out the best way to do it. We feel we've landed on it and we will be making the case to the House. I'm looking forward to support from all members, hopefully, as we had before.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you, Ministers, for coming.

My beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay is a strong union riding, very proud of its union heritage, whether they are Saint John firefighters local 771, the Saint John police force union, CUPE local 18 for outside workers or ILA longshoremen's union local 273. The list goes on and on.

One of the first things I heard in 2015, not really knowing that much, was about Bill C-377 and BillC-525. It was like, “If you guys get in, you have to repeal Bill 377 and Bill 525.” I did some research. It was the Conservatives. They were basically union-busting bills that made it very difficult for unions to certify, and every union that I came across was against them.

I know that the Conservatives at times like to paint themselves as friends of unions. I would say that it's the exact oppositive. Unions built the middle class, with five-day work weeks, eight-hour days and safe work environments.

We've done a lot of great things for unions. As you said, Minister, we've banned replacement workers.

I am going to put a motion on notice to study how unions deliver powerful paycheques, better benefits and safer workplaces for all Canadians. I'll be moving that motion very soon and I hope to have support from everybody around this table.

Minister, if you can, I'd like you to share your efforts with respect to being Minister of Labour in delivering for Canadian workers and for unions.

Thank you.

Canada Labour Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand why he is uncomfortable with my speech right now. I am talking about a history of the Conservative government intervening and forcing workers back to work when we are talking about a bill, Bill C-58, which is designed to protect those collective bargaining rights. That is the context of my speech. I understand if he is uncomfortable taking a little walk down memory lane as we talk about Bill C-58.

We can also talk about 2012, when again the Conservative government intervened in a railway strike, demonstrating again it has no problem using a legislative sledgehammer against unions and workers. I hope on Bill C-58 its members stand up one day to vote in favour of this bill.

It was not just the government, because in the previous Harper government we had two private members' bill, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377—

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand here today with a great piece of legislation that is going to help out Canadian workers and help our economy get to the next level. We believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations, where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs.

That is why we have introduced this legislation, to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I have negotiated on both sides of the table, for the employer and for the union. I know for a fact that the best deals are always at the table. I know for sure that banning replacement workers puts that focus on the table to get the best deals possible.

This is where workers get those powerful paycheques that our Conservatives like to talk about. It is where Canadian workers secure reliable benefits and job security. The bargaining table is where Canadian workers secure changes and investments that make their workplaces much safer.

The threat of replacement workers tips the balance in the employers' favour. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of true collective bargaining. Ultimately, replacement workers give employers an incentive to avoid the bargaining table. It is a distraction that can prolong disputes and can poison workplaces for years after. We have seen it throughout our history, both locally in my riding and across Canada.

Conservatives like to perpetuate the myth that workers want to strike. They pretend that workers have some devious plan to halt our economy. This could not be further from the truth. Workers drive our economy. Positive labour relations make Canada a great place to invest, which we have seen so much of recently.

Striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain state for anyone. It can hurt a family's financial and psychological well-being. Our government believes that it is in everybody's best interest to ensure that workers, employers and the government work together to build a strong, stable and fair economy that we all rely on.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will not feel threatened when workers use their bargaining power to demand better wages and better working conditions. As the Minister of Labour has said, bargaining is hard work. It is tense and messy, but it works really well.

I met regularly with my constituents about labour issues, including the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council and the United Steelworkers, just to name a few. They are thrilled that we are doing this at a federal level. They want to see the same kind of leadership to benefit provincial workers in Ontario as well.

Just last week, I was at the Standing Committee on International Trade, where Robert Ashton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, said the following: “If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.”

He joined a chorus of union leaders who supported this legislation. This includes the United Steelworkers Union, which reported, “Federal anti-scab legislation will help 80,000 USW members and approximately one million workers across Canada.”

Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”.

I know the opposition does not listen to workers, but maybe the Conservatives might listen to the 70 labour experts who signed an open letter calling on Canadian policy-makers to support Bill C-58. The letter states, “By adopting Bill C-58, Parliament has a historic opportunity to advance workers' rights and improve labour relations in federally-regulated workplaces by:

“Strengthening the collective bargaining process and levelling the playing field in contract disputes;

“Banning the use of strikebreakers that inflame tensions and poison workplaces [for very long periods of time];

“Reducing instances of picket violence and vandalism;

“Incentivizing employers to focus on reaching negotiated settlements at the bargaining table rather than strategizing over how to best undermine union members exercising their right to strike.

“Bill C-58 offers practical and meaningful measures that would help to address longstanding imbalances in the labour relations regime.”

We have heard from experts, from labour leaders and from Canadian workers. We have also heard from members of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, who have expressed their support for this legislation. However, we have not heard from the Conservatives. In fact, today, the CLC continues to issue statements calling on the Conservatives to tell us what their position is.

It is no surprise that the Conservative leader, who has spent his entire career standing against working people, has not shown his hand. He proclaimed himself dedicated to bringing the right-to-work laws to Canada. These notorious U.S. laws are aimed at undermining unions; ultimately, they are about worse conditions and smaller paycheques. The Leader of the Opposition has enthusiastically served wealthy interests most of his life. Under the previous government, he championed two of the most anti-union, anti-worker bills that the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We repealed them right away. In 2005, he even opposed child care, because the workers would be unionized.

Actions speak louder than words. Recently, the Conservatives have been opposing Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which would bring workers to the table so that workers decide how we meet our economic opportunities. Instead, the Conservatives submitted 20,000 amendments at committee and then tried to submit another couple of hundred frivolous amendments to put the brakes on it. The race is on to seize the greatest opportunity of our time, which is to unlock the potential of renewables, to create thousands of jobs and to drive sustainable economic growth. Right now, companies are deciding where to invest and build. The Liberal government is meeting this momentum, but the Conservatives are throwing temper tantrums.

Now Conservatives, again, have not told us where they stand with respect to Bill C-58. In fact, in 2016, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan opposed similar legislation, arguing that replacement workers offered opportunities for the unemployed to gain temporary work and valuable experience. Think about being so out of touch with working Canadians that one thinks temporary jobs to replace working Canadians are somehow a solution. More recently, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster complained that similar legislation would result in a higher share of company profits going to unionized workers. In a time of record corporate profits, it is hard to imagine being upset that working Canadians might get a greater share of the profits that they are responsible for producing.

We know how important this legislation is to Canada's labour unions and the workers they represent. We know that experts support this bill. The bill has the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. I urge my Conservative colleagues to reconsider their efforts to oppose working Canadians and consider, just this once, actually supporting workers.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey—Newton for his hard work.

Members of the Canadian Labour Congress were in Ottawa this week to express their frustration with the Conservative leader's silence on our government's replacement worker legislation. The last time that party stayed silent on a piece of legislation, it voted against Ukraine. For the 19 years the leader has been elected to the House, he has always voted against unions, including with Stephen Harper's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and it is increasingly obvious he will always stand against workers.

Canada Labour Code

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I want to start by reminding Canadians that the middle class in Canada was built on the union movement. It was not until we had a strong union movement that we developed a strong middle class.

There have been a number of studies over the years by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Centre for Future Work and others that have shown that, starting in about the 1980s, union density, which is just a fancy word for what percentage of workers belong to a union, has gone down, from 38% in 1981 to just 29% in 2022. That is a Stats Canada number. That number, according to these studies, correlates with a decrease in the number of Canadians who belong to the Canadian middle class and with the decline in real wages for Canadian workers.

We see that belonging to a union has meant more powerful paycheques for Canadians, has meant more job stability in many cases and has meant a stronger Canadian economy overall. When we see fewer workers belonging to unions, we see more vulnerability for those workers, lower pay and consequences for the Canadian economy.

When workers are well paid for the work they do and they have spending power in the local economy, that helps feed local businesses, helps feed our economy and creates strong conditions for business. That is the lesson of Henry Ford, who is by no means a socialist, but even he realized that if we do not pay workers well enough to buy products in the economy, it is not long before the economy overall suffers, as well-paid workers are the cornerstone of prosperity.

How is it that the union movement has been able to win powerful paycheques for workers or to help them win them for themselves? There are many components to the labour movement. There are many ways they do advocacy, and there are many ways that workers within the union movement advocate for themselves and for fellow workers. However, all of that, at the rock bottom, is supported ultimately by the ability to strike.

That means the ability to say they are not satisfied with the terms and conditions of work, whether that is pay, benefits, pension, workplace procedures or workplace safety and health, and that they are not going to go into work on those terms and conditions. They want to stand with the people in their workplaces who feel similarly and demand better. Ultimately, all of us in a workplace, if we are of the same mind, should be able to withhold our labour.

The right to strike is the most important principle that subtends all of the power and influence the union movement has had in order to improve the position of Canadian workers. The most significant way this can be undermined is when employers are allowed to hire replacement workers during a strike. While some workers are out on the picket line saying they deserve better pay or want to address workplace safety and health issues, other workers come in the back door, perform their work and sometimes get paid, egregiously, on better terms than the workers who are out on strike were paid before the strike began.

New Democrats have been arguing alongside the labour movement for decades now and have presented, many times, legislation that would end the practice of employers being allowed to bring in replacement workers. The Liberals will say this was a campaign commitment of theirs. However, if we look at their platform, it is not true. It was a commitment they made to ban replacement workers when companies lock out their workers essentially to impose a strike.

It is only since the NDP used our power in this Parliament that the proposal became a comprehensive one that defends the right to strike instead of offering punishment to employers who would lock workers out. What we need in order to vouchsafe the power of Canadian workers' paycheques and the right to strike is a ban on replacement workers in the context of a strike as well. I am very proud to be part of an NDP caucus that has delivered that and made sure that this legislation does the whole job and properly respects and protects Canadian workers' right to strike.

It is the kind of legislation we needed for almost six years when IBEW Local 213 was out on the picket line against Ledcor trying to secure a first contract. Nobody ends up with a six-year labour dispute unless an employer is using replacement workers. The business wraps up a lot sooner than six years if it is not using replacement workers. What that means is the business is forced to bargain.

In this House, I have watched as Liberals and Conservatives voted together. As I have said, the real coalition in Ottawa is the Liberal-Conservative coalition. It voted to order workers back to work, to essentially take away their right to strike. We saw it with the Port of Montreal and we saw it with Canada Post workers.

Notable have been the examples where the federal government has refused to say that it will legislate workers back to work, because then we saw the company come to a deal. One of those instances was in 2019 with CN. CN was asking for back-to-work legislation. The government departed from its usual tack and refused to promise back-to-work legislation. Very soon after the federal government clearly refused the idea of bringing in back-to-work legislation, we saw a resolution to the strike. The company's strategy for bargaining could not use the federal government to get out of paying workers their fair share and to circumvent a real negotiation at the table.

It is likewise with replacement workers. If replacement workers are banned so that they cannot be part of the bargaining strategy of a company, we will see more speedy resolutions to labour disputes and ultimately, I believe, fewer labour disputes. In fact, there is some evidence for this from jurisdictions with anti-scab legislation. Those who say this is a travesty that would prolong labour disputes or that there would be more labour disputes are speaking against the evidence and, frankly, have an ignorance of how collective bargaining works and the ways companies mobilize replacement workers in order to get out of having to bargain fairly at the table.

We have heard a cornucopia of red herrings in this debate. We have heard Tories talk about replacement workers at battery plants that have not even been built yet. I share their concern about tax dollars being invested to create jobs for Canadians. Those are legitimate issues, but they do not have a place in a debate about anti-scab legislation.

The Tories are using a new term they are developing today for replacement workers to distract from the fact that they refuse to take a clear position on whether they support replacement workers coming in the back door while real, current Canadian workers are out on strike bargaining for better pay and a better future. That is a red herring. Canadian workers should not allow them to get away with being dishonest, quite frankly, about their position on anti-scab legislation by trying to distract with this other conversation, an important conversation but a different conversation nevertheless. This is our time to have a conversation about replacement workers in the case of a strike.

The Conservatives want to talk about the NDP wagging the Liberal dog. There is some truth to that on this point, for sure. As I said, the commitment the Liberals made is not what they are moving ahead with. We have a formula that would protect workers' right to strike. I am proud of that. They can go sing that from the mountaintops. We are also doing that. We want workers to know that we have their backs when they are out on strike, like the Ledcor workers, who needed legislation like this.

I would remind Canadians, too, of Bill C-377, from the Parliament when the Conservative leader sat at the cabinet table, and Bill C-525, bills that would have made it much easier to decertify a union in the workplace, not with the touted 50%-plus-one majority that is talked about when it is time to form a union, but with a 40% minority. That is how the Conservatives would have allowed unions to be decertified in a workplace. Not only that, but they would have required a bunch of sensitive financial information about individual union members to be published online, which would have put workers at a serious disadvantage in their strike position because it would have required unions to reveal the amount in their strike fund to employers so they could plan to bring in replacement workers and wait out the strike fund.

Give me a break when Conservatives say they are standing up for workers. We know that a strong union movement is integral to the powerful paycheques that Canadian middle-class workers have been able to bring home. We know that banning replacement workers is important to protect that. That is why New Democrats are proud we have this legislation before the House.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

I am proud to speak to and defend Bill C-58, which proposes amendments to both the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. With good reason, the labour movement has consistently criticized the use of replacement workers, deeming it destructive and unfair. Bill C-58 is about restoring that long-overdue fairness and about levelling the playing field.

Relying on replacement workers not only diverts attention from the bargaining table but also prolongs disputes, ultimately poisoning the employer-worker relationship for generations. The crucial question that arises is why Canada should now consider banning the use of replacement workers. Practices' merely being customary does not automatically render them justifiable. Should a worker's right to engage in meaningful labour strikes be compromised by the looming threat of replacement? Is a bargaining table where negotiating power is significantly curtailed truly fair? Can the reliance on replacement workers be deemed appropriate in 21st-century labour relations? The answers to these questions are no, no and no.

My parents fled a right-wing fascist dictatorship to come to Canada to work hard and to contribute to our democracy. In dictatorship Portugal, organized labour and unions were banned because the dictator did not want workers to be treated fairly, to have the right to assemble or to have bargaining rights, and he definitely did not want workers to be able to strike.

I stood on picket lines as an eight-year-old, alongside union members, my parents. My father, a proud member of United Steelworkers at John Inglis and Company, a highly profitable company, contributed to the production of industrial machinery here in Canada. The USW union and the Teamsters were two unions my dad belonged to, and my mother, Maria Fonseca, was a card-carrying member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE. I can attest to the pivotal role these unions played in enhancing the life of our family and the lives of thousands of union employees, and benefiting all workers.

Recalling a distressing moment from my childhood, I vividly remember when my father, Joachim, “Jack”, Fonseca, informed my mother that his union brothers and sisters would be commencing a strike the next day, a chilly February day. His fight was centred around securing better wages, improving benefits, gaining advancements for health and safety conditions and safeguarding his pension. The ensuing strike lasted nearly two months, with replacement workers being a significant factor in its prolonged duration. The company opted to deploy non-unionized management personnel on the production line and brought in replacement workers, commonly referred to as “scabs”. Additionally, it exploited vulnerable workers, employees who were struggling, by encouraging them to cross the picket line. This strategic move not only hindered the progress of negotiations but also poisoned relations between employees and employer and led to the deterioration of friendships among co-workers.

Extended disputes of this nature tend to bring out the worst, placing workers in untenable positions where they must choose between asserting their rights and providing for their family. Recognizing the detrimental impact of such situations, various jurisdictions have enacted legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers. Quebec implemented such legislation in 1977 to curb the violent confrontations arising from strikes and picket lines in the province. Similarly, in 1993, the Government of British Columbia passed comparable legislation in response to the escalating tensions between employers and the labour movement. The outcomes in Quebec and B.C. following the passage of such legislation were notable. The frequency of strikes decreased, providing for more predictability and stability.

We consistently emphasize the importance of focusing on being at the bargaining table. Conversely, on the other side of the aisle, Conservatives always seem to have jumped up and introduced back-to-work legislation, as they say, and to have used replacement workers. It is just wrong. It is crucial to acknowledge that striking represents a last resort for workers, as no one desires to lose benefits and rely on strike pay. Collective bargaining, while challenging, remains the preferred solution.

Our economy relies on employers and unions engaging in meaningful negotiations to secure the best and most resilient agreements. Bill C-58 seeks to maintain focus on the bargaining table, promoting stability and certainty in supply chains and in the overall economy. While each industry and bargaining table may differ, the overarching goal is consistent: keeping parties engaged at the table, fostering a more predictable process and eliminating distractions. The legislation aims to achieve these outcomes for business, employers and unions alike. Emphasizing the importance of this approach is not only a smart strategy but also the right one. Labour has long advocated for such measures, and the positive reactions from labour leaders since the bill's introduction underscore the significance of the bill. As expressed by Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour, “[t]his is Canadian politics at its best. This is Parliament working for workers.” Past victories by unions have significantly enhanced the ability of workers to enjoy a decent quality of life. I highlight these points because, now more than ever, legislation supporting workers is crucial.

There are members of Parliament, including the Conservative leader, with a history of attacking labour, attacking unions and undermining the interests of workers. The Conservative leader has been a strong advocate for implementing U.S.-style right-to-work laws in Canada. It is telling that the Conservatives and their leader avoid mentioning the words “union”, “labour” or “scab”. These omissions speak volumes about their anti-labour stance.

Unionized workers are currently leading the way in negotiating substantial wage increases amidst rising inflation. Moreover, it is great that an increasing number of young Canadian workers are expressing interest in the labour movement, initiating union efforts in diverse workplaces such as Uber, Starbucks and grocery stores.

Let us not forget, from during Stephen Harper's administration, the Conservative leader's anti-worker Bill C-377. The Conservatives vigorously opposed card-check legislation, which aimed to facilitate unionization. They opted instead to make things more difficult for workers and to afford employers more time to intervene in union initiatives. The Liberal government, in response, enacted legislation to reverse the anti-union Conservative amendments under Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills that undermined unions and the ability of workers to organize. Across Canada, employers invest millions in legal, consulting and security services to thwart union drives, ensuring their lack of success. There have been employers that have helicoptered replacement workers over picket lines into job sites.

The Conservative leader and the Conservative Party advocate importing into Canada U.S.-style right-to-work laws that weaken the labour movement by hindering unions and collective bargaining. Shamefully, the Conservative leader actively promotes right-to-work laws here in Canada. In 2012, the Conservative leader spearheaded a campaign to allow public sector workers to opt out of union dues, directly challenging the Rand formula, a rule backed by the Supreme Court that allows unions to collect dues. The Conservative leader is, unequivocally, an anti-labour-union proponent, aligning himself with extreme right-wing, MAGA politics. Despite the pivotal role played by the labour movement in securing progressive labour laws and improved working conditions, the Conservatives consistently fail to acknowledge these contributions. The Conservative leader's history reflects consistent support for anti-union, right-to-work policies looking to rob individuals of civil and job rights.

In contrast, Bill C-58 legislation under consideration would be unique, arising from tripartite collaboration among employers, workers and the government. It aims to enhance labour relations in Canada, fostering greater stability and certainty for all citizens.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservative Party of Canada. Its approach on services to Canadians was to close Veterans Affairs offices; cut services to women; fight with the unions, including with legislation that was anti-union, like Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which the member voted in favour of; or, furthermore, continue to make cuts across the board.

We have stepped up to support Canadians. Our public servants stepped up to help Canadians through the pandemic, and now we are in negotiations to make sure we get the right deal for them and the right deal for Canadians.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I question the member opposite's mention of our Conservative colours. She knows full well that the very first thing we did when we were elected was to eliminate the Conservative anti-union legislation Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. The attacks the Conservatives laid on labour were legendary, and that is why we worked in partnership with organized labour across this country to deliver real services to Canadians.

That is why we continue to sit at the bargaining table in good faith to work with them to continue to deliver the quality of services that Canadians have always received from the public service and deserve to continue to receive.

Pension Protection Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill today.

As a left-leaning progressive politician and union man, it is really important for me to be here in the House to support the initiative of the member who introduced this private member's bill. This initiative is completely in line with the values of the NDP, which has been the political party of workers since its foundation.

We have always been there to fight to give workers decent working conditions, decent work schedules, decent insurance, and adequate and decent wages so that they and their families and children can have a good quality of life.

With that perspective, the fight to protect people's retirement plans and pensions when a business goes bankrupt has always been a major concern for the NDP, as the working class party and the labour party. This is not the first time we have debated this issue. I must point out the work of NDP colleagues in the previous caucus who fought for this, who were pioneers and who worked very hard.

I am thinking of Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston and Scott Duvall, who, before retiring from political life, took up this cause. All the work done by my current colleagues in the NDP caucus and past colleagues has ensured that today we are about to arrive at solution that, although not perfect, is positive.

However, I cannot help but point out that when Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston and Scott Duvall introduced similar bills to protect the rights of pensioners, the Conservative Party systematically voted against them.

Today, we find ourselves in a new situation. I am pleased to note that the Conservative Party seems to have gone on the road to Damascus and seen the light. They have had a change of heart, and I hope that it is not being opportunistic in order to portray itself to voters as the friend of workers for the next election, but that it is something more deeply rooted and serious.

I always welcome spontaneous conversions, but I also remember that, when he was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, the Leader of the Opposition was one of the harshest critics of workers' rights. He levied sustained, systematic attacks against worker and union movements with bills such as C‑377 and C‑525, which would have weakened or even wiped out unions in Canada and Quebec. That is always on my mind, so I am always a little apprehensive, a little suspicious because, as a minister, he repeatedly attacked the union movement that stands up for workers' rights. I think people need to be aware and keep that in mind right now. Nevertheless, I applaud the work of the Conservative Party member who introduced this bill, which the NDP obviously supports because it is about time.

We have seen extremely tragic situations where people who dedicated their lives to a business, to a company, who set money aside, wound up in extremely difficult, trying situations when their company went bankrupt.

For example, when Sears went bankrupt, people in Quebec, Ontario and western Canada saw their pensions drop by 20%, 25% or 30% per month. These people lost hundreds of dollars because they were not priority creditors under the law. Bankers and investors took precedence over the workers who had, in some cases, devoted their entire lives to these companies and counted on them. This is not a question of charity, a gift to these workers. It is their money. They set aside wages for years, decades, to cover their golden years. It is their money.

It is good that today, as parliamentarians in the House of Commons, we can act soon to help these people, to protect them and to avoid dramatic situations like those we have seen with Sears and many other companies.

I will tell a quick personal story. I was a teenager when my grandfather died. I am from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and my grandfather Urgel worked at Singer for 44 years. Singer was the big factory that drew people to the town for work. It employed thousands of people. My grandfather worked there for 44 years and then he retired. A few years later, Singer went bankrupt. Not only did it go bankrupt, but its executives took off with the pension fund. Those folks just took the money and ran.

The Singer pensioners had to fight in court for years. They had to hire lawyers to get some of their money back. Unfortunately, by the end of the long legal proceedings, my grandfather, like many of his co-workers, had died. My grandmother did finally receive a small portion of the pension that Singer had stolen from them. This is just a family example, not a personal one, because it did not affect me. However, I was told this story, and it really did affect my family. The fact that no one had any protection at the time, the fact that the workers were not considered priority creditors ahead of the investors and bankers, really affected my family.

The NDP chooses to put people first and stand up for them ahead of the banks, and we are not afraid that people are going to stop investing in Canada and that the sky is going to fall because of it. In fact, I think we can go even further. When the rules of the game are known and they are the same for everyone, then investors can make informed investments, knowing what the rules are, what the consequences of bankruptcy will be and who will be paid first because it is their money first and foremost.

The bill could have been improved. My NDP colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, tried to do so by proposing an amendment in committee to protect not only pensions and retirement plans, but also severance pay. Oddly enough, the committee chair ruled that the amendment was out of order, that it fell outside the scope of the bill. However, this friendly amendment had been welcomed by the member of Parliament who is is responsible for this bill. It is therefore rather odd that the Liberal chair of the committee would reject a friendly amendment, which seemed to me to be perfectly in order since it concerned the rights of workers in the event of a company's bankruptcy. It was done in exactly the same spirit, and the majority of the committee members agreed with the amendment.

That decision was upheld by a Speaker's ruling. The NDP tried to pass a unanimous consent motion to undo the Speaker's ruling, which is something that can be done and is well within the rules. Unfortunately, some Liberal members refused to overturn the Speaker's ruling, refused to respect the will of the committee, and refused to protect the rights of workers when it comes to severance pay. Usually, in the House, we do not know who said no. However, oddly enough, the member for Winnipeg North said he was not the only person who said “no”. In saying that, he himself admitted, as the member for Winnipeg North, that he had said no to this request from the NDP for unanimous consent to respect the will of the majority of committee members. However, he never explained why he, as the member for Winnipeg North, or why the Liberal Party members were against protecting severance pay in the event of bankruptcy.

For a party that claims to be a friend of unions and a friend of workers, that is rather odd and contradictory. I look forward to hearing the member for Winnipeg North explain to us why he opposed this measure when he is a democrat and respects the will of the committee. While the three opposition parties agreed on this amendment, he said no in the House and opposed workers' rights. I look forward to hearing the member for Winnipeg North explain why.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to be rising in debate on third reading of Bill C-228. There have been many attempts in the past to try to secure pension protection for workers when their companies go bankrupt. I believe this is the furthest we have come so far, and that has been the result of some good cross-party collaboration, which is often what it takes to be able to accomplish things for workers in this place.

I want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her collaborative and conciliatory attitude in trying to move her bill forward.

I would also like to thank the member for Manicouagan for her work on this matter and for her co-operation during the negotiations.

I also want to recognize the work of one of my former colleagues, Scott Duvall, who did a lot of work on this subject over two Parliaments and essentially developed the private member's bill that I was honoured to present in this Parliament on the very same issue.

This bill is an interesting case study, if we look at the process it has been through, of how difficult it can be to achieve things for the working people of Canada.

There always seem to be roadblocks and hiccups, and we do not see those same kinds of roadblocks usually put up when the government is trying to do something for corporate Canada. Those things tend to run pretty smoothly. Sometimes New Democrats try to slow it down, but we have only so many seats in this place. That is up to Canadians. That is why we are always working hard to elect more New Democrats so that we have more of an ability to ensure that corporate Canada does not have the run of this place.

In order to get something done for workers, it usually takes some kind of coming together of many disparate things in the right order, at the right time and in the right place. That is pretty hard to do.

We saw that, just the other day, with the member for Winnipeg North. There was some agreement not only to protect the pensions of workers when their companies go bankrupt, but also to go above and beyond and to really do the right thing.

We saw this in the case of Sears workers as well. It was not just their pensions that they lost, but there was a lot of controversy over their severance and termination pay at that time, millions of dollars.

We now have a Parliament that was prepared to do that for working people. Instead, with some procedural fig leaves, we saw the member for Winnipeg North get up and exclude what I take to be a really important part of the bill as it came out, amended, from committee, without actually speaking to the substantive issue.

We just heard from another Liberal MP on this, who did not address the issue of termination and severance pay and why the government was so keen to remove that from the bill.

I think that they owe workers an explanation on the substance of the matter, not on the parliamentary procedure but on why it was that, when there was just about a parliamentary consensus, and if it were not for the Liberals there would have been a parliamentary consensus on the fact that it makes sense to protect the termination and severance pay of workers, why they blew that up, instead of seeing it for the opportunity that it was to do right by workers and to have a gold standard when it comes to protecting them in the case of bankruptcy.

As I said, it is hard to accomplish things for workers in this place. I know because I am part of a caucus that works relentlessly to try to do that.

The Liberals ran on a promise to do better when it came to bargaining collectively with our public servants. In fact, the Prime Minister wrote them all a very nice note when he first got elected, and said that things were going to change, that it was not going to be like it was under the Harper years, when those guys would go for years without a collective agreement.

I met just last week with representatives of a public sector union who represent the thousands of people in Elmwood—Transcona who work at the tax centre. What are they telling us? They have been a year without a contract. The government will not make a wage offer. They are having to go to some kind of mediation because they cannot get the government bargaining in good faith. We see that far too often.

Frankly, when Conservatives have been in government, we have seen that lack of good faith and difficulty in getting contracts for public servants too. That is part of why it is very difficult to get things done for workers in this place.

In the previous government, we saw Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Folks in the labour movement will remember those bills because they made it easy to decertify a union. They made it harder to certify a union, and they would have required unions to inappropriately disclose their financial position, which matters if one is thinking about a strike, for instance, in order to make the case for better wages and working conditions.

If the employer knows how much is in a strike fund, it is very easy for them to develop a strategy to exhaust the strike, so that was something that was not good, and the Liberals promised to get rid of it. They did, finally. It took a long time after they came to power for Bill C-4 in the 42nd Parliament to pass. I remember encouraging them to do it a lot more quickly. It did not take a lot of time for them to try to pass a deferred prosecution agreement arrangement when SNC-Lavalin came knocking and said that was something it wanted. That appeared quickly in a budget bill, and all of a sudden it was getting done, when it took a year for the legislation to repeal Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

We have also seen Liberals and Conservatives stand up in this place over the course of many Parliaments now to legislate workers back to work, because God forbid workers get too uppity. They had to shut that down and make sure they were back at work, doing what they were told and working for the wages the government put in legislation.

The Liberals talked for a long time about anti-scab legislation, but until it was put in a confidence and supply agreement it was very hard to have any confidence they would do it, and they still were not going to do it the right way until the NDP said very clearly that anti-scab legislation should not apply just when there is a lockout, but also when there is a strike. We know the Conservatives are not supportive of anti-scab legislation, and that is why it is hard to get things done around here for workers.

Even for 10 paid sick days during the pandemic, we had to argue again and again that it ought to be done. We are told that next month it should finally be in place. We have had to wait a good long time. Do members know who did not have to wait? It was big companies at the beginning of the pandemic, when big banks and others got access to liquidity very quickly, because the government was concerned about them. We have seen that when the government is concerned, it is able to act quickly, and we often see long delays when it comes to doing the right thing by workers.

I am sick of it, and that is why this has been a very hopeful process, working with the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Manicouagan, because something has been coming together here that is a good thing for workers and that we have been working to institute for a long time.

Not only was it going to be just the next little step, but it was going to be the gold standard. We see again that in this institution there are so many ways to pick off victories for workers, sometimes when we least expect it and sometimes for reasons that appear to have nothing to do with the substance but actually have everything to do with the substance in the bill, because we saw the parliamentary secretary for industry come to the finance committee and sing some kind of big tale and sad song from the financial industry about how hard it was going to be on them and how nobody was ever going to have any access to credit or anything like this. That was right out of the mouth of industry through the mouth of the parliamentary secretary.

These are all arguments that have been considered in the past. Parliament has studied this issue many times before. There was no new information in that. The fact remains that when we have a bankruptcy in this country, it is workers who are left holding the bag. It is wrong, and it should change. When we look at the percentage of businesses that go bankrupt and then the percentage of those that actually have defined benefit pension plans, the fact of the matter is that we are talking about a very small percentage of any one financial institution's portfolio. They can surely bear that risk and carry that load.

Most businesses they invest in succeed. We know that, and that is why we can say with confidence that this is something we can do to protect the pensions of Canadian workers. I wish I were saying we could protect the severance and termination pay also, because we know the big banks and financial institutions are going to get along just fine. The people we should be concerned about in this place are the people who work for 20 or 30 years and do not get a second chance to have a retirement nest egg.

They depend on that, and they went to work on that understanding, and when something goes wrong that is far beyond their decision-making or control, they need to know that the future they worked for is in place for them, so I am very glad we will be doing that with their pension. I am angry we are not doing that for termination and severance pay because the Liberals decided to go for sneaky tricks instead of a straight-up vote on the issue in this Parliament, and I look forward to working with other members of this place to see if folks in the other place, the Senate, will have the good sense to do what we should have done here.

Taxation

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about hard-working Canadians, unionized working Canadians. Our government believes in supporting them, and that is why one of the first things we did was repeal anti-worker Harper legislation: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. If the Conservatives really want to support Canadian working people, they should promise never again to put forward anti-worker legislation.

Fall Economic Statement

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to talk a little about respect and what it means, because I think we are living in a time when people are finding it hard to be respected.

People are working hard at full-time jobs while interest rates are going up. If the conversation they are having around their table is whether they are going to continue to be able to afford their home, whether that is because of mortgage payments or rent that continues to climb much faster than any possible justification for it, I think they would feel like they cannot get respect.

Young people who are working four or five different jobs in the gig economy, trying to make a go, are giving up on the dream of home ownership. They are wondering if they are going to be able to afford to buy their food as they try to figure out a time to eat between the different jobs and the places they have to get to in order to work them, and they do not feel the effort they are putting in is respected right now.

People facing layoffs know there is not a decent employment insurance system to count on, because some of the improvements that were there for the last couple of years during the pandemic were taken away by the government in September, even as it begins to talk about the possibility of recession. They are feeling like they are not getting any respect, that the government is not there to put in place the kinds of things they need in order to weather the storm.

There are people living with disabilities, who cannot work at all or who can work only part-time, and I think there are many people who, due to COVID, either have had the experience of not being able to work for reasons beyond their control or have not been able to get enough work. A lot of Canadians now know that pain, and it is one that people living with disabilities in Canada have known for far too long. They cannot get respect. When they see that the meagre disability pensions various levels of government offer, which have been legislating people living with disabilities into poverty for years, even before the pandemic, are not going up in the context of inflation, it is hard for them to feel respected.

Seniors have worked their whole lives and are now trying to make it on a fixed income that does not really grow and certainly does not grow at the pace of the extraordinary level of inflation we have seen in essentials. They do not feel like the career they had, to fight for and earn that pension over time, is being respected when it gets burned up so companies like Loblaws can make another million dollars a day of profit.

Indigenous people in Canada are part of generations of people who have not been able to access good economic opportunities and services at home. When they move to the city and find that systemic racism and jurisdictional disputes get in the way of their ability to access those opportunities and services, that is not respect, and that is a long and ongoing disrespect that Canada has paid far too often to indigenous people.

For sick Canadians right now, who just need to go to the hospital or need to get their kid or parent to the hospital, it is hard to feel respected when they walk in and see the incredible need that is there and the fact that governments have not risen to the occasion to invest in the training, employees and infrastructure we need in order to be able to deliver good health services.

Therefore, on top of all the real financial distress that people are experiencing, I think there is also this tremendous feeling of disrespect, of working really hard doing the things people can in order to make it, and of more and more not being enough. There is a feeling that the people who should be there to have their back, to try to create structures and systems that allow people who are working hard in their own way to succeed, are not doing that job.

Respect requires a few things. I do not pretend to have a comprehensive list today, but I want to offer up some of the things I think are particularly pertinent to debate in this place and some of the policies that we could adopt here in order to make life a little easier for Canadians.

Certainly one thing that respect requires is civility. We have to treat each other well. Respect also requires that we be honest with each other, and there is certainly a lack of that in this place, far too often. The third thing it requires, which speaks to some of the problems I opened this speech with, is results. We can talk at people all we like, but if at the end of the day things do not actually get better, if there is not actual material improvement that they can feel in their household budget, then it does not matter what we say in this place.

At the end of the day, we are not respecting people if we are not coming to the table and working together to implement real solutions that are going to make a difference in their lives.

I want to talk about civility, which is something we have talked a lot about this year, unfortunately, because there is such a pronounced lack of it. Even though we have some strong disagreements in this place, that is okay, because that is what this place is for. However, we need to do that in a way that respects other people with a different opinion and we need to understand that it does not make them demons, monsters, traitors, treasonous or whatever other word people want to substitute in. Just because somebody disagrees with us does not mean we should adopt a conspiracy theory that they are part of some kind of world movement to undermine everybody. Just because somebody disagrees with us does not mean it is okay to promote the use of violence or attack them physically.

That is not okay. We have seen too much of that in Canada. We have seen too much of it encouraged, frankly, in the kind of irresponsible rhetoric that too often finds its way to the floor of the House of Commons.

I am going to disagree with some people today, and I am going to be harsh in my criticism. That is okay. It is when it gets taken to the next level that it is a real problem, and it is a problem that is too present and is undermining Canadian democracy.

Unfortunately, we are living in a time when that is not an alarmist thing to say. It is a truth that needs to be spoken. It is in that spirit that I am going to engage in what I hope is some meaningful and constructive criticism here today.

We have to be honest with each other if we want to show respect to ourselves and to each other in this place, but also to Canadians. I want to highlight some issues on which I think there is a pronounced lack of honesty about what is really going on. That is important, not just from the point of view of respect, but in the sense of being honest for its own sake. It is important because, if we want to get to that other part, the results, we have to be honest about what the problems are. If we cannot be honest about what the problems are and where they come from, or if certain political agendas are allowed to obscure what the real causes of the problems are, then we will not get to the solutions and we will not get the results we need.

We talk a lot about inflation in this place, and inflation is a real problem. That much is true. That is honest, and we will hear that from all sides. If we want to tackle the problem of inflation, then I think some of the narratives around here are quite unhelpful.

As much as I think it is true that the liquidity that was offered to banks right at the beginning of the pandemic, just as it was under the previous Conservative government when the great recession of 2008 hit, poured more gasoline on the fire in our housing market, I do not think it is plausible to try to pretend that moment in 2020 caused the housing crisis in Canada.

How do we know that is true? Anyone with a memory that extends back past 2020, which I hope is anyone serving in this place, will know that housing was getting more and more unaffordable then. It was breaking household budgets then. We have been on a trajectory for the last 20 years that has seen housing prices skyrocket.

In the case of inflation in the housing market alone, it is simply not true to say this is a new problem since 2020 and it has all been fuelled by government dollars. In fact, the people buying up these properties are private actors in the housing market, and they were sitting on tons of cash before the pandemic.

They are finding ways to buy properties in the housing market and make housing more unaffordable for people who do not have a lot of means, so they can rent those same places out to renters. One of the places this started was when the Harper government refused to renew the operating grants of affordable housing that was built in the sixties and seventies.

That was not even the starting place; it was just another place. We can go back to 2015 and a bit earlier to see when real estate investment trusts started slobbering all over formerly affordable buildings that they could pay for with the money they already had in hand, mostly due to corporate tax cuts that were initiated in 2000 by the Chrétien Liberals and continued by the Harper Conservatives. Jim Flaherty himself complained that businesses were not spending and reinvesting in real capital that enhanced Canadian productivity. Those piles of cash were being used to get into real estate.

Let us not pretend somehow that public spending alone manufactured a housing crisis in Canada. It is not true. We will not fix the problem until everybody in this place, including the leader of the Conservatives, acknowledges that. Let us have a little honesty about the root causes of that.

Let us also have some honesty and recognize that we are in a time of serious global supply chain shortage. That is driving a lot of inflation when it comes to the price of many things. People who have been fortunate in this time to purchase automobiles have complained about the long wait. It is because they cannot get the chips from China, because China has a zero tolerance COVID policy so they often do not have workers in the factories that make the chips.

It is partly because of the free trade agenda of Liberals and Conservatives alike that outsourced that work at the end of the 1980s and the early 1990s instead of building that stuff here. It is a little rich to hear Conservatives these days talking about restoring and free trade out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

Let us talk a little about the role that corporate greed is playing in inflation. We have seen reports that say as much as 25% of the current inflation that we are experiencing comes from price increases that go above and beyond the cost increases that companies are experiencing. That is a real thing.

When we look at the report about Loblaws today, and we see that mad money is being made by a number of companies, when we see that profit happening in the oil and gas sector, and we saw it with big box stores in the pandemic, we know that these price increases are being charged on the very market principles that Conservatives and Liberals alike love to defend, which is charge what the market can bear. It is why the government does not want to implement a windfall profit tax, because it thinks if someone is in the right place at the right time and they own something that they can charge a lot for, that that is good and that is what they should be doing. It does not matter if it is food. It does not matter if it is socks. It does not matter if it is rent. It does not matter if it is a Nintendo. To them, it is all the same.

What New Democrats have been trying to say in this place for a long time is that not all goods in the market are the same. There are goods that people cannot do without. They are not just goods. They are not wants. They are not desires. They are needs. We should have a government that structures our economy to make sure that people can access the things they need and leave to the market the things they simply want. That is a meaningful difference.

We need a little honesty in this place when it comes to what it means to defend the rights of workers. We have a Leader of the Opposition who gets up all the time and pretends that he is defending workers. I remember that he was part of the government with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 that were a direct attack on workers' ability to organize. I have noticed his pathetic silence when it comes to the Conservative government in Ontario right now pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause in order to deny the collective bargaining rights of workers.

I find it difficult to see the Prime Minister pretend to be a champion for those same rights when I watched in this place as his government introduced and railroaded through, with the help of the Conservatives, back-to-work legislation for Canada Post workers and workers at the port of Montreal.

If he is upset at the Ford government pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause, we can be sure he does not have an objection to taking away collective bargaining rights by legislating people back to work. Let us have some honesty about that in this place as well.

One of the ways we could help people is by removing the GST on home heating. That is a long-standing NDP position. I thought maybe we would find some help from the Conservatives, but they are obsessed with the carbon tax. Let us have a little honesty about the facts.

First of all, the carbon tax does not apply everywhere in the country. B.C., Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories all have their own carbon pricing system. Removing the federal carbon tax from home heating would not do a whit for people who are concerned about the cost of home heating in those provinces. Maybe the provincial or territorial government would do that, but it sure as heck is not going to happen here.

What would help everyone across the country is if we removed the GST on home heating, because that does apply all across the country. That is why it is a better solution. That is why we proposed it in an amendment to a Conservative opposition day motion that presumably was about affordability and helping people, and they said no. Why? I am not going to take that as their permanent answer, because I believe, and we have to believe here, that people can come to their senses and make better decisions.

It is why I asked the leader of the Conservative Party earlier today after his remarks on the fall economic statement if he would join with us to work to get rid of the GST on home heating. He dodged the question. He never once mentioned the GST in his answer. I found that passing strange. The Liberals are inadequate on this. They should have done something about this in the fall economic statement. It was a clear opportunity to get something done.

Yes, they have done some things to help. I am going to give them that. What have they done to help? Well, they talk about dental care, so that children can get access to dental services. For some of them, it will be the first time in their life. They talk about the Canada housing benefit, another $500 a month for low-income renters. They talk about the doubling of the GST rebate that is going to be rolling out tomorrow for the next six months. They talk about investments in child care.

Those are all good things. I remember those things. I remember when we first raised those things and got laughed at by the Liberals, whether it was on the GST rebate, because, “Oh, we did not need that. The economy is roaring. Everything is fine. This inflation is just transitory.”

I remember running in 2015 on a national child care strategy. I remember the Liberals running against it. We kept up the pressure. We kept talking about it. We went out and talked to Canadians who need child care in order to be able to go to work. We knew we were not going to drop the file. We kept pushing it until the Liberals came to their senses.

I remember just about 18 months ago when the Liberals stood up with the Conservatives in this place in a previous Parliament to vote against dental care. It was through the power of our 25 votes in this Parliament that we held them over the barrel and are getting them to actually get it done.

Yes, I am quite aware of some of the things that the Liberal government is doing in order to bring help to Canadians. I am also quite aware of the extent to which those things would not be happening if Canadians, in their wisdom, had not elected a minority Parliament and given New Democrats the opportunity to fight for the things that we have always said we would fight for. That is exactly why we are fighting for those things.

One of the things that is in the fall economic statement, which again is something that is in the supply and confidence agreement, is a pandemic dividend. What is that? This time it is actually a dividend that comes back to Canadians, instead of Canadians paying for the dividends that go to shareholders. It is on banks and insurance companies that made record profits during the pandemic. It is a one-time payment of some of those enormous profits going back into the coffers of the Canadian government, not so that it is in the pocket of the government, but so that it goes out in the form of the GST rebate and the dental benefit and the Canada housing benefit. That is something that we fought for, including a permanent 1.5% hike on the corporate tax rate for those very same financial institutions.

I was glad to see the elimination of student loan interest permanently in this economic statement. That is something that I have watched New Democrat MPs get up for the last seven years that I have been here and talk about and, again, get laughed at by folks on the government benches. It is because we are here and it is because we are pushing that we see things like that in the fall economic statement.

I want to talk a little about housing again. There are a few initiatives here. There is an anti-flipping tax. There is a doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, which is something that New Democrats have advocated for. I will say that these measures are still part of that market-based approach to housing that I believe we really need to move past if we are going to find a solution to the crisis in housing.

We have to invest a lot more in non-market housing. That has to be the priority if the government is not going to challenge the culture of housing as a commodity, which it could do by moving on real estate investment trusts and which it could do by buttressing the position of non-profits that want to build non-market housing.

Unfortunately, one of the needs there now is just to cover the difference that interest rates have made for projects that are on the books that now cannot go ahead because interest rates have changed the math. If the government would come to the table to help them acquire buildings and lands quickly when they are having to compete with these rates, that would be helpful. If it would come to the table to say that it is going to cover the difference in their business plan for their non-profit housing, that they are suffering because of higher interest rates, that would be something that would help.

They also need to get serious on urban indigenous housing as a part of that. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague from Vancouver East. In question period earlier today, she was talking about the need for a meaningful and well-funded urban indigenous housing strategy. The government talks a big game. It wants to say that a $300-million investment is a record investment. I think that if that is true, what a shameful testament to Canadian history that indigenous peoples living in urban centres have not been able to access more funding for affordable housing far sooner.

That is the kind of thing that we need, but that again is outside the market framework that largely dominates Liberal thinking about the housing space. If we cannot break out of that, we are never going to make the difference that we need to make for Canadians in these challenging times.

I have talked a little bit about some of what is in the fall economic statement, but I want to spend some time talking about what is not in it.

As I said earlier, we are in a very challenging moment as a country. There are all of the things that New Democrats have fought for, some of which the government is doing and some extra things the government is doing. There is the 2% tax on share buybacks, which I think is a positive measure. I am glad to see it, but I do not think it is going to make all the difference. It has to be a part of a bigger package. In addition to those things, there are many other things that really ought to have been here and that an NDP government would have been keen to put in our own fall economic statement.

Consider the question of employment insurance. The government just today is starting to talk about a recession in the offing. Just a couple of months ago, we had an employment insurance system that had been made better, not perfect but better, during the pandemic as it was easier to qualify for benefits. There was actually a benefit floor. For a part-time worker or somebody working a couple of part-time jobs who is having a hard time getting all their hours and 55% of their income from those jobs that have been cobbled together is not enough to live on, we actually had an income floor so that when they were laid off, they could hope to be able to pay the rent. All of that went by the wayside on September 24. It is just gone.

We have been saying for years during the pandemic that when those rules expired, when the government was ready to let them expire, they had to be replaced with meaningful structural reform to the employment insurance system and that in no way should the government let the new rules lapse because those rules were a lot more on the way to a functional employment insurance system than anything that we had before. At the very least, the Liberals could have kept that in place until they came up with a new fix.

We still have not seen what that new fix will be. There are rumours about maybe them acting on it this fall. I sure as heck hope so, because if the rumours about a recession in early 2023 are true, people are going to need that employment insurance to be there for them.

Only about four in 10 working Canadians before the pandemic qualified for employment insurance. That is why it was such a broken system. We have to find fixes to that. I had hoped at least there might have been a reference or a hint as to what the government has in mind on how to fix that system.

I was also disappointed to see that the only reference to health care in the fall economic statement was dental care. I am glad that dental care is there but, man, is there ever a lot more that we need to do.

The provinces need more funding for health care and I believe, as New Democrats do, that the federal government can play a positive role in convening provinces to talk about best practices to develop a human resources strategy that is not based on some provinces poaching people that other provinces train, but to have a truly national training strategy where the provinces participate on their own terms. However, somebody has to bring them together in order to have those conversations and make that happen. There is a role for the federal government to play there.

We need to acknowledge that a big problem in our health care system right now is that just not enough trained people are available to do the job. That is a national problem right now and it requires a response with every part of the country working together, arm in arm, to figure out how we meet that challenge. It is going to require federal funding, to be sure.

There was not a word about that. However, that is the reality that so many Canadians are living when they go to the hospital. This includes the 350 people who are dying from COVID every week in Canada, who are going to the hospital before their death to seek help and find they have to wait for hours if they are lucky, and days if they are not, to get service.

How do we pay for many of these things? I talked earlier about a windfall profit tax. We know there are companies that can afford to pay more and ought to be paying more. This is not a time when we should be tolerating exceptional profits, which are well above prepandemic levels, without asking those same companies to pay a bit more on that extra profit. It does not make sense because that is some of the money that Canadians are giving up due to higher prices, and we need that money in order to bring the cost of those essential things down.

I would like to think, and I hope others will agree, that mine was a pretty honest talk about some of the problems we are facing. I do not expect that everyone is going to agree on some of the solutions the New Democrats are putting on the table, which is fair enough, but that is what we are here to do, to put ideas out there and debate them. I hope we are here to find common ground as best we can in the course of debates like this to be able to move ahead on important measures, such as removing the GST from home heating, for instance, as we prepare to go into another cold Canadian winter.

Therefore, I offer what I hope is an honest analysis of the problems we face. I have tried to offer some solutions that I think would behoove the government to take up. We stand ready to work with anyone in the House who wants to talk about these solutions, or propose other good ones that we have not thought of yet, to make life better for Canadians as they stare down a very difficult fall and beyond.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to say a huge thanks to MP Chris Lewis for bringing this private member's bill before us. It is with great happiness that I hear opposition members talk about standing up for workers. This is the party that previously brought in Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525, which we had to repeal and which were definitely anti-labour legislation. I would also hope there will maybe be some influence from our federal colleagues on their provincial Ontario colleagues in terms of standing up for education workers whose rights are now being taken away pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause.

In any case, I'm going to focus on this piece of legislation before us.

Mr. Lewis, I've had the true pleasure of being on this committee for a few years, and we've had a number of trades workers come before us and say that it is super important for them to be able to have a certain amount of money to cover their costs in terms of going through the different jurisdictions. They've asked for this for a number of years.

Just over the last year, in our Budget Implementation Act, we implemented the labour mobility deduction, which provides $4,000 per year in tax recognition for eligible tax and temporary relocation expenses, because that has been requested by tradespeople. I'll tell you, we had Sean Strickland from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He applauds the Government of Canada for its support of skilled trades workers in budget 2022, which implemented this labour mobility deduction. He said the labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople is something for which we have advocated for over two decades, and it will support working Canadians and families to travel to where the work is, helping to address labour availability across the country.

We also heard from the president of the Canada Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, who stated that Bill C‑19's labour mobility deduction was a welcomed step that would benefit workers.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that there is a labour shortage, which all of us are painfully aware of. I want to ask you a specific question and I want to give you a little bit of a scenario, because right now the way the bill is written, as you've proposed, it doesn't require those claiming it to be working in Canada.

For example, even with a 120-kilometre distance requirement, you could have an individual who lives in Oakville take up daily work across the border in Buffalo. In your very own riding of Essex, a skilled tradesperson living in Kingsville could travel to a work site in the west end of Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Canadian taxpayer would be footing the bill if your legislation passed. Under your bill, it would be a better deal for someone to work in Ann Arbor or Flint, Michigan, than in Windsor.

I'm concerned, and I know many others are concerned that this may further incentivize workers living close to the border to take work in the U.S. at a time when we're facing serious labour shortages here in Canada. Can you maybe address this? I know that you've also talked about a worker deficit in the House. Have you received any assurance that this won't further exacerbate the issue by incentivizing those skilled workers who live close to the border to work outside the country?

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her hard work and her constant advocacy for workers.

As a cabinet minister in the Harper years, the Conservative leader actively supported anti-union legislation, such as Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, and he is still attacking supports for workers today.

Today, our government launched consultations on eliminating the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. This government will always be on the side of workers, while the Conservative leader gatekeeps Canadians out of safer, good paying jobs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with you and all of my colleagues this evening to debate Bill C-19.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre this evening.

It is a pleasure to be here this evening to reflect and offer a few thoughts on a piece of legislation that is important not only for those in the chamber but also for all Canadians, coast to coast to coast. It is important in the fact that I, like many of my colleagues here, have children at home, or grandchildren for that matter, and everything we do, as legislators and as members of Parliament, should be through the lens of ensuring that we leave a strong economy and a clean and healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.

I do have some thoughts on where we are in Canada and in the world, and where we are with the economy today. Bill C-19 would continue to put us on a path for strong economic growth, good jobs and employment prospects for Canadians. We would also ensure we are leaving behind a very healthy and clean environment, including reaching our net-zero goals by 2050 and the interim targets which were defined and which we became accountable for through Bill C-12.

As we look at the Canadian economy, with an unemployment rate of 5.2%, we, as a country, through the hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have recovered 116% of the jobs to where to were pre-COVID. We are on the right path. Our AAA, the big A's and the small a's, for our credit ratings have both been affirmed by all three major agencies: DBRS Morningstar, S&P and Moody's. Our fiscal framework and the finances of this country are strong and continue to be guided by the Minister of Finance, who is doing an incredible job.

We know that in the world today, Canadian families are facing an affordability issue. We have inflation, and we know what has caused the inflation. We do know that COVID-19 has disrupted and continues to disrupt supply chains. Some of them have been fixed, and some of them will take longer. We know the barbaric, unprovoked invasion by the Russian Federation and President Putin into Ukraine has disrupted commodity markets, food markets and, obviously, energy security and affordability. We acknowledge that.

I see it when I go to the grocery store. My wife sees it when she goes to the grocery store to shop for our three children. It is a conversation at home. We all know it. We must be steadfast and resolute as a government to maintain the backs of Canadians as we move forward through this environment, and as we move forward ensuring that Canadians have the resources they need for them and their families.

We can look at our measures for affordability over the years. We have Bill C-19 and the BIA, as well as bills on past budget measures that we have implemented. We can think about the Canada child benefit being indexed, which benefits more than 9 out of 10 Canadian families. It is literally thousands of dollars, tax free, arriving monthly to Canadian families. We can think about the Canada workers benefit, something I have championed day after day, literally helping millions of Canadians and lower-income workers. We can think about early learning and child care plan we have put in place with all provinces and territories. It is something we said we would do. It is a promise made and a promise kept.

My family is going to be putting our almost eight-month-old daughter into day care in the fall. It is something we will see a benefit from. I know that in the province of Ontario, by the end of this year,December 31, we will see a 50% reduction in child care fees. For the area I represent, the York region, just on top of Toronto, this would represent a 50% reduction in child care fees. It would represent literally thousands of after-tax dollars to families in York region and in the city of Vaughan. That is something I applaud.

I am proud to be part of a government that signed on and collaborated with provinces and governments of all political stripes in the provinces. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, which wishes to tear up the early learning and child care agreements, we will maintain those agreements. We will continue to work with those provinces and territories across Canada to maintain these agreements because it is the right thing to do. We will not buy into the gimmicks offered by the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to affordability.

Our seniors will receive a 10% increase in their old age security in July. That is roughly $800 a year, which will continue to be indexed, for roughly 3.5 million seniors. Again, that is a promise made and a promise kept by this government. I look forward to seeing our senior groups over the summer at the bocce courts, picnics and gatherings.

In the city of Vaughan, we have such a vibrant senior population. I love my seniors. They built this country, and they built the community. Many of them immigrated here with very little education and very little money. They came through Pier 21. They never complained. They worked hard. They saved, and they created a better future for themselves and their families. I just love and applaud them. They have my utmost respect as an individual and as a parliamentarian.

We have committed to dental care, and that is something that I have a very granular story on. A senior came into my office and said she needed help with her dental care. She had an infection. We sent her to York Region where there is a program to assist low-income seniors. Something like that for a senior who is on a very minimal income can really bankrupt them. It could really set a person back.

We cannot have that in our country. We cannot have that in modern-day Canada. That is why we have committed to ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, such as young children, seniors and all Canadians, will have some sort of coverage or insurance through a $5.3-billion dental care plan that will ensure vulnerable Canadians do not have an issue with getting dental care. The BIA and Bill C-19 really invest in growth, in people and in the green transition.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the tradespeople who build this country from coast to coast to coast. My father was a tradesman. He was a carpenter, a labourer, a sheet-metal worker and a roofer. I remember working on weekends with him, when we would do odd jobs for our neighbours and friends, and that was something that taught me the values of hard work, sacrifice and putting aside that dollar, and I see that in our budget.

We came through on a promise made and kept on a labour and mobility tax deduction for tradespeople. Obviously, they have to fit the criteria. This would be $4,000, and it would be a deduction and not a credit. A deduction is very powerful. It would allow tradespeople to move from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction and cover those expenses, which is something I know the Canadian Building Trades Union, LiUNA and the carpenters have advocated for.

I mention those two organizations because both of their training facilities are located in the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I meet with those members, and those are the folks who every day, rain, shine or sleet, warm or cold, get up to build our communities and build our critical infrastructure. They are great people.

We need more of those apprenticeships, and when we talk about apprenticeships, our government rolled out a program called the UTIP, the union training and innovation program.

We have committed another $80 million, which is within Bill C-19, to ensure we train literally thousands and thousands more apprentices. I went on a visit to a carpenters union, and I was looking at CCAT. They had their apprentices there, and they were high school students. They were being funded through this UTIP program. It was so great to see these young folks so excited about their futures and so excited about what they are going to do in this country, building the homes and the infrastructure for tomorrow.

The same thing takes place, whether it is at the LiUNA 506 training facility in York Region or LiUNA 183's training facility, with the operating engineers, the painters, and the HVAC and the electrical workers. The same thing takes place, and we are partnering with all of these organizations.

Members will remember that the Conservative Party from prior years attacked private sector unions with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. The first thing we did in 2015 and 2016 was repeal those bills. We will always stand beside working Canadians, and we will always stand beside those tradespeople who go to work every day to maintain and build and repair our critical infrastructure.

When it comes to homes, I have spoken before about them in the House. I am blessed to live in a very entrepreneurial area. I have to hand it to the entrepreneurs in my area. The Mayor of Vaughan, the hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, was a member of Parliament for many years. He committed to raising $250 million for our hospital, so this city of 330,000 people has the spirit of generosity.

We, the city of Vaughan and the entrepreneurs, hit the target of $250 million last week. I applaud them. They are entrepreneurs who have taken risks, invested, made money and contributed to their hospital. With that—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

Good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you so much for your testimony this afternoon. It's very interesting.

I, too, want to thank MP Zarrillo for bringing this motion forward.

My questions will be for the Canadian Labour Congress.

Before I start, I want to thank you for what you do for workers, as you said, Ms. Vipond, 3.3 million workers across this country. I want to thank you for your leadership and for your advocacy. I know that your past-president Hassan Yussuff has been in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay many times. We've laid wreaths together on the National Day of Mourning. I always enjoyed my time when he was here.

Our government has been an ally and friend of unions since coming to office. I remember that in 2015 one of the things I was absolutely passionate about going to Ottawa for was to fight for the repealing of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, with our Bill C-4. I remember working with the CLC to make that a reality.

We've engaged regularly with unions and stakeholders across the country in numerous areas of our economy, from the energy workers to the building trades, and from the care economy to the tourism and hospitality sectors, all of which are critically important in my riding. We've been there to address the challenges facing these industries with government support and improvements to existing rules and legislation, such as the Canada Labour Code and occupational health and safety for federally regulated sectors.

Despite health care being a provincial jurisdiction legislated and regulated by their respective provinces, I do believe the federal government can still play a role in the hiring, the retention and the retraining of staff while improving work conditions for all.

Recognizing that health care is provincially delivered, what further opportunities do you see between unions, professional orders and employees in the care economy and the federal government to deliver quality services?

Labour

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this matter falls under provincial jurisdiction, but let me share with members what we have done as a government in order to support unions and workers from the time we were elected.

In 2015, one of the first measures we implemented was Bill C-4, which repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were actually anti-union pieces of legislation. We have been there for workers. Members can look at the enhancements we have made under the Labour Code, such as increasing leaves and creating new leaves. We have been there, and we will continue to be there for workers every step of the way.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and sorry about that confusion.

Good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you for your presentations.

Mr. Yussuff, it's certainly great to see you again. I think we first met here in Saint John, New Brunswick. You came down for the Day of Mourning and laid a wreath on behalf of the CLC at the Frank & Ella Hatheway monument here in Saint John.

I've been on HUMA going on six years. I remember the first questions I asked you were about the Conservative union-busting bills C-377 and C-525. It seems like a long time ago.

Anyway, I want to focus on the EI benefits and the expanded benefits. I would certainly concur that the opposition is there to challenge and oppose, but when it comes to impeding the progress of a bill that would affect thousands and thousands of Canadians, I think we all should be very concerned.

We're certainly aware that in late February, Minister Qualtrough came forth with an extension of the CRB and the caregiving benefit, and the additional 24 weeks of EI. We all know how critical those programs are. Certainly, I will say that we have seen first-hand how critical a strong EI system and EI programs are to support workers, especially during what I would call, obviously, a historic crisis, a historic pandemic.

Mr. Yussuff, on February 25, as we know, the government tabled Bill C-24, which would extend EI regular benefits for Canadians who are unable to work due to the pandemic. Yesterday the bill was read a second time, and the Conservatives refused to allow this bill to be sent to committee.

Just to make the committee aware, if these EI benefits are not extended, in the first week alone, 23,000 Canadians will lose access to their only source of income support. Every week that they delay, tens of thousands of Canadians will exhaust their EI benefits.

Mr. Yussuff, with the Conservatives delaying the implementation of this bill, what impact do you believe this will have on Canadians?

COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Chair, with all due respect, I have to completely disagree with the member's statement and assertion. We have been working hard for workers from the time we were elected. Right off the bat, we had the implementation of Bill C-4, repealing Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were anti-union pieces legislation.

Let us look at some standards and enhancements that we have implemented: stronger labour standards, enhanced leaves, new leaves and flexible work hours. We have and we will continue to work hard for our workers in Canada.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for that question and for his advocacy on this file. I remind the member that since 2015 one of our first initiatives was the repealing of Bills C-525 and C-377, which were anti-union legislation.

Since then, we've implemented a number of measures to protect workers. We've increased the wage earner protection program by extending it from four weeks to seven weeks. The member is well aware that in 2019—

News Media Industry

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we know that a strong, independent media is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. That is why we wanted to make sure, on our independent panel, that unlike what the Conservatives want, it is not just newspaper owners and media giants that are on that panel. We need to make sure that hard-working journalists are well represented on that panel as well.

On this side of the House, we will always defend labour and we will always defend workers, unlike the Conservatives, who attack organized labour at every chance they get, including with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 in the last Parliament.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the member opposite's high dungeon was when her government was bringing in anti-union legislation, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were the very first things we eliminated when Canadians voted the Conservatives out and voted Liberals back in.

We will always respect organized labour in the country. We will work with it and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians it represents.

We are going to continue to stand up for an independent media. That means supporting employers and employees.

Government Priorities

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been unequivocal in our support for labour, and we are happy to celebrate that this May Day.

There is no question that since forming government, we passed Bill C-4 to eliminate the unfair Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 that Harper passed. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence.

We will continually stand up for labour and stand up for workers across Canada.

Canada Post

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for bringing up this important issue.

I am happy to rise today to speak about our government's introduction of back-to-work legislation to ensure the resumption and continuation of services at Canada Post.

Our government has always recognized that unions play an important role in protecting workers' rights and in growing the middle class.

I would remind the House that under the previous government, many of the fundamental labour rights that unions fought to secure were rolled back. It was more difficult for workers to organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith and work in a safe environment.

When we came to power, we restored fair and balanced labour laws that recognize the important role that unions play in Canada. We abolished Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which weakened Canada's union movement.

We recognize that unions are important in helping the middle class grow and prosper. We also believe in a fair and balanced approach to labour relations.

This is why the government did everything it could to support Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and encourage them to sign new collective agreements.

However, despite our efforts, the parties were unable to reach an agreement. We brought in back-to-work legislation, Bill C-89-, on November 22. The rotating strikes ended and postal services resumed.

On December 10, the Minister of Labour appointed Elizabeth MacPherson, a former chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, to help the parties reach new collective agreements.

The most recent collective agreements have been extended until new agreements can be reached. The work stoppage at Canada Post has had significant negative impacts on Canadians, charities, businesses of all sizes, international commerce and Canada Post, its workers and their families.

Canadians and businesses rely on Canada Post and its workers, especially during the busy retail season. We had to take action. Let me be clear that back-to-work legislation was a last resort, but a necessary one after having exhausted all other options. It was necessary to avoid future harm to the economy.

We took these steps, and we continue to ensure that there is fair negotiations between Canada Post and its union to reach a negotiated settlement.

Canada Labour Code

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join this debate on Bill C-420. I had to check my prepared text. I actually agreed with a number of points my colleague across the way made. I wanted to make sure that we had it right in the text.

I would like to use my time to speak about the current situation and where we are with the three prominent issues that arise from this piece of legislation: the use of replacement workers, the situation for pregnant and nursing employees, and the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. Through my comments I hope I will be able to share with the chamber and with colleagues the concerns the government has with this piece of legislation.

Let us start with replacement workers. The Canada Labour Code balances a union's right to strike with an employer's right to attempt to continue operating despite a work stoppage. The current provisions in part 1 of the code already limit the use of replacement workers. Indeed, federally regulated employers cannot use replacement workers to undermine a union's representational capacity. In fact, federally regulated private sector employers rarely use replacement workers. More often, management, supervisors and other non-bargaining personnel are reassigned to take the place of striking workers.

The current provisions in the code related to replacement workers are the result of a broad and comprehensive review that represents a carefully crafted compromise between the interests of employers and the interests of trade unions that could not be achieved through a private member's bill or through the private member's bill process.

In the past, both labour and employer organizations have been highly critical of changes being made to federal labour relations legislation through the use of private member's bills without prior consultation with all stakeholders.

The Canadian Labour Congress has said in the past:

...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.

Members who were in the House at the time will remember that one of the first actions our government took was to repeal the Conservative private member's bills Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which upset the balance of rights and responsibilities between federally regulated employers and unions.

Good labour relations are a key element of an economic system, and indeed, of the prosperity of this country. If legislative changes are to be considered for part 1 of the code, let us do it the right way, through real and meaningful consultation and engagement with unions, employers and all stakeholders.

The current provision in the code was achieved through a thorough and meaningful tripartite process. It strikes a balance between the interests of unions and the interests of employers. It allows each side to exercise pressure on the other. If passed, Bill C-420 could upset that balance.

Regarding pregnant and nursing employees, the code currently contains provisions that give a pregnant or nursing employee the right to ask to be reassigned or to have her job modified, without loss of pay or benefits, if there is a risk to her health or the health of the fetus or the child. If a reassignment is not possible, the woman may take a leave of absence for the duration of that risk.

Also, an employee may be entitled to leave with pay to obtain a medical certificate or while waiting for her employer to respond to a reassignment request. Any additional leave is without pay. However, the employee may be entitled to benefits under an insurance plan or a sick leave program provided by the employer or to benefits through the employment insurance program.

As mentioned by my colleague across the way, the fact is that currently only Quebec specifically offers preventative withdrawal job protection with wage replacement for pregnant and nursing women.

If passed, Bill C-420 would put pressure on provinces and territories that do not have preventative withdrawal provisions. Moreover, our government is already supporting another related private member's bill, Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy, which was passed in the House June 14, 2017, and is currently being studied by the other place.

The purpose of Bill C-243 is to consult on the development and implementation of a national maternity assistance program strategy. The objective is to support women who are unable to work due to pregnancy and whose employer is unable to accommodate them by providing reassignment. If Bill C-243 passes, it would require consultations with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders. It is reasonable to believe that the results of such consultations would have an impact on the mechanism proposed in Bill C-420.

Finally, I will speak about the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. In 1982, the Constitution Act enshrined English and French as Canada's official languages. It also provided that they have equality of status in all institutions of Parliament and of the Government of Canada.

Two separate statutes regulate the language of work in Quebec: the Charter of the French Language, enacted 1997, and federally, the Official Languages Act, enacted in 1969 and revised in 1988.

While the government is sensitive to the preference of francophone Quebeckers to work in French, there is little documented evidence that francophones face difficulties working in French in federally regulated private enterprises in Quebec. In fact, according to the 2016 census in Quebec, an increasing number of workers whose mother tongue is English or another language use French as their main language at work or equally with English. About 48% of workers whose mother tongue is another language primarily used French at work in 2016. That is compared to 46.5% in 2006. Similarly, about 25% of workers whose mother tongue is English mainly used French at work in 2016, compared to 23% in 2006. That is an increase in both measurements. Moreover, the federal labour program has never received a complaint from a federally regulated private sector employee in Quebec concerning an inability to work in French. Indeed, in 2013, a government report concluded that these employees are generally able to work in French in their workplaces.

One last thing I must point out is that corporations active in Quebec, including those incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, are already required, under provincial law, to comply with the Charter of the French Language, which includes having a French name when registering to carry on business in Quebec.

There we have it: Canada's current position when it comes to replacement workers, pregnant and nursing employees and the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. Now that members can see the full picture, they can understand why the government cannot support Bill C-420.

Canada Post Corporation

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke made a reference, early on in her comments, to collective bargaining. I know it is somewhat obscure for the member, having gone through 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, who showed nothing short of distain for organized labour and collective bargaining in this country while they were in power. We saw that time and time again. A record four times they used back-to-work legislation in their last Parliament, and there were two other occasions when they had it on the shelf. They were ready to pull it off the shelf during labour disputes. It was pretty much a template for back-to-work legislation: insert labour organization here and insert date here. We saw it time and again.

We saw bills like Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Might I add that the government the member was part of did not even have the courage to submit them as a government. Conservatives put them through the back door through private member's legislation and brought them to the House to try to put it to organized labour in this country. Yes, we have a different approach to organized labour and to collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is something this government believes in, and back-to-work legislation is an absolute last resort. We know that Canada Post and CUPW had been in negotiations for over a year. There was no sign of a settlement. There was no indication that a settlement could be reached. We had time and time again sent in mediators and arbitrators. At the end of the day, we knew that the rotating strikes being undertaken were hurting the Canadian economy, and we knew that we had to take action to make that situation right.

CFIB identified in a survey that it impacted almost two-thirds of Canadian businesses. During that critical time of the year, I know that in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso, businesses that make their stake between November and Christmas in the export sector were being impacted not just by delays in the mail but by the uncertainty that was being created by the rotating strikes. That is why we ended up taking the initiative, and as a last resort, tabled back-to-work legislation.

We know that the piece of legislation we tabled was considerably different from the legislation tabled by past the Conservative government, where there was a prescription for a resolution. We put in an arbitrator who would look at factors around health and safety issues and gender parity on wages. Those were issues we felt were imperative, and that is where the situation lies now, in the hands of Elizabeth MacPherson. We thought it was the best way forward, not just for the corporation, not just for the workers, but for all Canadians.

Canada Labour Code

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for permitting me to be a part of the debate on Bill C-420, tabled by my colleague the hon. member for Mirabel.

First of all, I would like to remind the House what this bill is about.

Bill C-420 would amend the Canada Labour Code, also known as the code, in order to accomplish three things.

First, it would prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

Second, it would authorize the minister of labour to enter into an agreement with the government of a province to provide for the application to pregnant and nursing employees of certain provisions of the provincial legislation concerning occupational health and safety.

Lastly, Bill C-420 would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act to clarify the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

Tabling the bill gives us the opportunity to review the Government of Canada's actions in regard to labour relations especially, as well as in regard to working conditions for pregnant and nursing employees.

I want to use my time today to go over some of the actions that have been taken.

Let us talk first about what Bill C-420 proposes to do with regard to replacement workers and labour relations reform in Canada.

The bill seeks to amend the code to make it an offence for employers to hire replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on a lawful work stoppage. Any contravention of this provision would entail a fine of up to $10,000 for the employer. The bill would also permit an employer to not reinstate any locked out or striking employee at the end of the work stoppage.

We have to keep in mind that amending the code can have an impact on labour relations if it is not done properly. Any proposed amendment requires a broader comprehensive review of part I, as well as a tripartite consultation process that involves the government, the labour movement and, of course, employers. In fact, all concerned parties, including academics and external stakeholders, should be consulted since these reforms would affect a great number of Canadians across the country.

It is a long-standing practice not to amend the code in a piecemeal fashion or without soliciting the input of affected stakeholders. The current provisions in the code are the result of such a review and represent a carefully crafted compromise between the interests of employers and trade unions.

Let me provide an example. In 1995, a working group, mandated by the minister of labour, led an extensive public consultation on part I of the code. Workers, employers and government stakeholders were consulted, as well as external stakeholders, such as academics and others, who could provide relevant insight. The working group's report, entitled “Seeking a Balance”, formed the basis of the significant changes to part I of the code that came into effect in 1999.

The consultation process is critical to any legislative changes made to industrial relations at the federal level and our government has always respected that.

Since our government took office, we have been committed to re-establishing a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. Re-establishing a climate of collaboration and developing evidence-based policies is our objective. The very first step we took in that direction was to table Bill C-4 to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. We did this because Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were both adopted without having been through the aforementioned tripartite consultation process typically applied to labour law reforms. This process is an essential part of the foundation that supports free collective bargaining.

Let us talk now about pregnant and nursing employees. The health and safety of all workers, including pregnant and nursing workers, is a priority for our government. Let us not forget that federally regulated workers everywhere in Canada are very well protected by the strong provisions on preventive withdrawal provided for in the code. In fact, the code contains provisions on reassignments and leaves of absence for pregnant and nursing employees. These provisions provide protective measures to help them to pursue their employment in a safe environment.

In addition to provisions already in place, our government has taken a number of actions to ensure the health and safety of all employees, including pregnant and nursing employees. First, we have put forward new compliance and enforcement measures for occupational health and safety standards and labour standards. These measures include monetary penalties and administrative fees for employers who are repeat offenders, the authority to publish the names of these employers, greater power for inspectors, new recourse against reprisals, and improvements in the wage-recovery process.

Next, we have introduced amendments to the code to give federally regulated private sector employees the right to request flexible work arrangements. We have also put forward a series of new leave provisions, including a five-day personal leave, of which three days are paid, and five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, out of a total of 10 days of leave.

In addition to these provisions, other recently introduced amendments to the code would provide eligible working parents with improved access to maternity and parental leave once these amendments come into effect.

On top of all that, I must remind everyone that the government supported Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy. The bill is now in the other House for review.

Let us now turn our attention to the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. The 1982 Constitution Act, which enshrines English and French as our country's official languages, provides that both these languages be given equal status in all governmental and parliamentary institutions. Additionally, two separate statutes, the Quebec charter and the federal Official Languages Act, regulate the language of work in Quebec. Active companies in Quebec, including those incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, are already required under provincial law to comply with the Charter of the French Language. That includes being registered under a French name.

Consider also that the labour program has never received any complaints from federally regulated private sector employees in Quebec concerning an inability to work in French. This is backed up by a 2013 government report that concluded that these employees in Quebec seem generally able to work in French in their workplaces. If we look at Quebec's 2016 census, there are, in fact, an increasing number of workers using French as their main language, or equally with English, while on the job. Between 2006 and 2016, the rate of workers whose mother tongue was English and who mainly used French at work rose from about 23% to 25%. Meanwhile, workers whose mother tongue was a language other than English or French and who mainly used French on the job increased from 46.5% to 48% during this same period.

As members can see, our government is proactive not only on the issue of labour relations, but also on the issue of working conditions for all Canadians, including pregnant or nursing women, as well as on the issue of language of work for federally regulated employees in Quebec.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Mirabel, for his important work on Bill C-420.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, this government has worked in partnership with organized labour in the country. Among the very first things we did was eliminate Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, the anti-union bills the Conservatives had put forward. We then continued to work with labour, ensuring we would get to the bargaining table between labour and employers. We have demonstrated the tripartite working model works very well.

We know we are not always going to agree on everything with organized labour. However, we do know that basing everything on a respectful approach that values the contributions of labour and the strength of the middle class of the country is the way to do it.

Employment

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes in a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. That is why we repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, the Harper Conservatives' anti-union bills, as one of the very first things we did when we came into office.

We are aware of the situation at the Montreal airport and are monitoring it very closely.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the member opposite realizes that we have a high degree of respect for organized labour and, in fact, such a degree of respect that the first piece of legislation we introduced and passed was Bill C-4, which restored the rights of organized labour to collectively bargain and organize. It repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, two very harmful pieces of legislation that the Conservatives had rammed through the House in an effort to diminish the ability of organized labour to grow its movement, to work, as the member pointed out, on ensuring that there is decent work for people all across the country.

We also ratified ILO Convention 98, which guarantees the right to organize and collectively bargain. We have introduced legislation that we worked on with unions which unions have been calling for, for decades. These are things like pay equity, federally regulated proactive pay equity, something that unions have been calling for, including the union involved in this dispute, flexible work arrangements, and protection of federally regulated workers from violence or harassment in the workplace. In this respect, I would refer to Bill C-65, which recently passed. We have introduced updates to the Canada Labour Code to modernize it and protect the most vulnerable in the workplace, again in partnership with organized labour. The list goes on in terms of the work we have done in partnership with unions, because we recognize the important role they play in establishing a standard that often protects the most vulnerable and people who are not unionized in this country.

I will also speak to the second part of the member's question. The member asked what we have done to ensure we could work with the parties to help them arrive at a collective agreement. From my perspective, we have done everything we can to support the parties to get there themselves. For example, over a year ago, both parties agreed to work with a mediator, so we appointed the federal mediation service early on in their talks to help them have productive talks and work through some of the substantial issues that both the union and the corporation were facing. The mediators worked with the parties for well over a year. When those talks broke down, they asked—

An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, some people have started their speeches by saying they are pleased to join in the debate. Make no mistake that it is difficult. The NDP likes to characterize it as something less than that, but members should be assured that this is an action this government has not undertaken lightly. This has been quite some time in the making.

Since coming to government after the October 2015 election, Canadians have seen, and certainly organized labour has seen, that we go about our business quite differently than the previous Conservative government did. We take a different approach to how we work with organized labour. Having been here during that 10-year period, it was nothing short of an attack on organized labour. From the outset, it was obvious that Stephen Harper had organized labour in his crosshairs and was willing to do what he had to do in order to throw a wrench into organized labour in this country.

We saw egregious bills like Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills which were purposeful in trying to handcuff unions in this country from being successful and from giving them any opportunity to grow and represent Canadian workers. It is unfortunate, because when we look at organized labour, we can certainly say that nobody has helped grow the middle class more than union leadership in this country, which fights for fair wages, fair benefit packages, overtime benefits and health and safety issues. It has been organized labour that has led those fights over the years. We, as Canadians, enjoy many of the benefits of those efforts.

When we became government, one of our first pieces of legislation was Bill C-4, which was legislation that led to overturning the egregious bills I just referenced, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We were trying to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations. We were trying to restore a tripartite approach to developing labour laws in this country, where we have workers, employers and the government sitting down and crafting labour laws that protect us all and benefit us all.

We saw that thrown out of balance. We saw the attempt to change the Canada Labour Code through backdoor initiatives. Rather than using a tripartite approach, we saw it being changed by private members' legislation. We saw how much benefit it brought the Conservatives in the last election. Any organized labour, any rank and file member, in this country knew two numbers. They knew the number 377 and they knew the number 525, because both those bills were earmarked for organized labour.

We strengthened occupational health and safety standards in this country, because we believe every worker in this country has the right to arrive home safe to be with their families. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I must say that both the Conservatives and the NDP were very helpful and supportive of this legislation. We have good legislation, one which has been a long time in the making and a long time coming, but certainly both opposition parties were supportive of it.

We ratified ILO Convention 98 to ensure the rights to organize and to enter into collective bargaining. That convention had been advocated for for over 40 years, and it was our minister who was able to get that ratified at the ILO, something which we are very proud of as a government.

In budget implementation act No. 2, we brought forward legislation that will modernize labour standards to reflect today's workplaces. This is something from which many in organized labour will not benefit as it is for the many unorganized workspaces where shop floors are not unionized. It is for people in precarious work who are trying to knit together two or three part-time jobs in order to make a living and pay the bills. These are the most vulnerable workers in this country.

The modernization of labour standards in this country is going to be of help to all of these workers. This helps make sure that contracts are not flipped and that benefits are not lost when contracts are changed so that if there is a seniority list and certain people have worked for the company for seven years, they are able to maintain the benefits they worked for and earned over seven years and not lose those benefits in any way. We are very pleased to be able to move forward on that.

We have introduced pay equity legislation to ensure fairness. This makes sure that people and women in this country get equal pay for fair and equal work. We have also doubled the benefits in the wage earner protection program.

These are all positive initiatives we have embarked on and undertaken in this government.

The banning of the domestic use and the import and export of asbestos is very important. This is something that the CLC, Unifor, Canada's Building Trades Unions and many others in organized labour have been fighting to get for years. We are working with organized labour and employers as well, taking a tripartite approach to making sure we get right the banning and abolition of asbestos.

We as a government are committed to free, collective bargaining, and we believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution in any industrial dispute. That is why we refrained for so long before we got involved in this particular dispute.

This dispute has gone on for a year. We were engaged right from the start, appointing a mediator to let both sides share their grievances and find a way to come to some kind of agreement. A mediator was involved for a year. As the strike vote was taken and as the rotating strike began five weeks ago, we even appointed a second mediator and then a special mediator.

These mediators were selected from a list. We provided a list, and both sides were able to weigh in on who the mediator should be so as to build trust in the mediation process and in the mediator himself. The mediator was agreed upon.

The minister was very clear yesterday. She has worked tirelessly, as has her staff and the department. They have done everything possible to assist the parties to reach an end to this dispute. Despite their efforts, CUPW and Canada Post just have not been able to get to an agreement. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that we have been left with no other option but to introduce back-to-work legislation to get our postal service back functioning at full capacity.

It is important to understand that we knew as the process evolved that it was probably going to land here because both sides were very entrenched on a couple of different aspects of the negotiation. It is important that Canadians and Canadian businesses who rely on Canada Post and its crucial infrastructure are able to do their business. We know that 70% of online purchases are delivered by Canada Post. We know that Canadians rely on it as a service and that it is critical to many Canadian businesses.

In my own riding I have a small company called Galloping Cows, an exceptional company owned by Ron and Joanne Schmidt. They make pepper jellies and chutneys. They are very busy at this time of the year. We have many people from my riding and Atlantic Canada whose children have moved away and are living elsewhere, some in Fort McMurray. Thus, the packages to Fort McMurray from Port Hood are always a big part of the business that Galloping Cows does each year, which, certainly from Remembrance Day to Christmas, could make or break this young business. They have really felt the impact. It is not just that orders have not been sent, but also the fear of those who have sent parcels already. That is a big part of it, the threat of not getting the parcels to people in time for Christmas.

Throughout these negotiations, the Government of Canada has been proactive and tireless in its attempts to have the parties reach an agreement. The minister has discussed this at length. Federal conciliation officers and mediators have been assisting the parties throughout their negotiations. We know that there have been a lot of side conversations with people. Beyond the actual negotiators, many people have wanted this to be resolved and have offered their input to try to find resolution to this. We appreciate their efforts.

However, when bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. It is always of benefit when we can take some issues and look at them with a little bit of a different perspective.

The negotiations stalled again, so we offered voluntary arbitration. That was our suggestion. However, our government's offer of voluntary arbitration was declined. Thus, we have tried pretty much every club in the bag.

We also appointed a special mediator this week, in the hope of getting a deal. We have strongly encouraged the parties to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. We believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution.

No member of our government wants to be dealing with back-to-work legislation, but there is no end in sight and that is why we find ourselves in this situation. Canadians are feeling the effects of this dispute and it would be irresponsible for us not to act in the interests of all Canadians.

As I said initially, I can contrast our government's approach to organized labour to that of past Conservative governments. We can also look at the back-to-work legislation by the Conservatives in 2011. We know that after two weeks of rotating strikes, former prime minister Harper imposed back-to-work legislation on Canada Post and the postal workers of CUPW. It was interesting because we know that the minister at the time appointed an arbitrator herself, which is a little different from what we have done. We have appointed a mediator-arbitrator where mediation will be first and foremost.

That mediation I know was mentioned by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He wanted me to remind him of the guiding principles, because he had talked about the health and safety issues.

I will quote subclause 11(3) of the legislation, which states:

In rendering a decision or selecting a final offer under paragraph (1)(b), the mediator-arbitrator is to be guided by the need

(a) to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected;

(b) to ensure that the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value;

Those are the guiding principles, which are vastly different from the guiding principles of the legislation put forward by the Conservatives back in 2011. We know they worked against unions. We know that its legislation was very heavily weighted against unions.

That is certainly not the case with this legislation. We have proven to be a party that supports unions and workers, and that believes in the collective bargaining process. This is a last resort and not something that our government takes lightly.

When a strike or lockout impacts only the two parties involved, the government will help when asked and will not intervene. However, when it affects Canadians and Canadian businesses and all available avenues have been exhausted, the government has a responsibility to intervene. That is why we are bringing forward this legislation to require Canada Post workers to return to work.

In closing, Canadians need to know that the government has done and continues to do everything in its power to help the parties. In any industrial dispute, we are willing to help the parties resolve their differences without a work stoppage. A work stoppage helps no one, neither the workers and their lost wages, nor the communities and others impacted by the postal services that businesses use.

This legislation is no Harper-era legislation. We are not forcing specific conditions on the union. We just need to get to an agreement. If we had any hope at this point that the differences between CUPW and Canada Post were close to a resolution, we would not be tabling this legislation. However, after five weeks of rotating strikes, we are forced to say that it is time to act. The government has been working with CUPW and Canada Post for the last year and has done everything possible to prevent this dispute. Let us get back to work, get the postal service functioning at maximum efficiency and get the parties to a deal.

Canada Post

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about progressive governments, I think he wants me to share with him just what we have done for labour.

We have repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We have amended the Canada Labour Code and given federally regulated employees the right to flexible work. We have strengthened occupational health and safety standards and passed Bill C-65. We have ratified the ILO. We have banned asbestos, both domestic and the international trade of asbestos.

I think that is pretty progressive.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is poppycock. It is the same draconian measure as the Harper government. This is virtually the same motion it used when it legislated CP Rail workers back to work as well. This was a creation of Peter Van Loan, and the Liberals are now using it.

On the question of Bill C-377 and C-525, because the Liberals have made it pretty clear they want to coast through this entire Parliament, with this being the one meaningful thing they did for labour, the fact of the matter is one of the most egregious provisions of Bill C-377 was going to be that the unions would have to disclose the amount in their strike fund. The reason that was a bad thing was because unions need to be able to go out on strike and not have the employer know how long they could sustain a strike. The strike is what gives them leverage at the bargaining table.

How dare the minister get up and say they got rid of Bill C-377 so they are here for labour, ignoring the fact they are implementing back-to-work legislation. That ends the strike anyway, in which case, what does it matter what is in their strike fund, because the government is going to artificially end the strike anyway. They cannot give with one hand and take away with the other and then call themselves a champion of labour.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member opposite wants to talk about the work we have been doing with labour and the support for workers in our country, because in fact there is no question that our government has taken the well-being of workers very seriously.

First, we repealed Bill C-525 and C-377. We passed Bill C-4, which restored fair and balanced labour relations in the country. It made it easier for organized labour to recruit new members and grow their movements. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65, which provides federally regulated employees with protection against workplace violence. We ratified ILO convention 98 to ensure the right to organize and to collective bargaining.

Through Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards, largely informed by the conversations we have had with organized labour about the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces and the protections they need in a modern Canada Labour Code.

We introduced pay equity legislation. Again, it was appealed for by labour for many years before we formed government. We worked with them to make sure we could listen to those concerns and address something that is fundamentally a right: equal pay for work of equal value. We have almost doubled the benefits from the wage earner protection program.

I could go on. Our government profoundly believes in the rights of workers, especially the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces, and we have worked very well with organized labour to make sure we get those details right.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the sentiment that we talked about back-to-work legislation earlier than we had to. We have worked with the parties, as I said, consistently, not just for the past five weeks during the rotating strikes but also over the past year, by providing the parties every tool necessary to reach a collective agreement.

We have appointed federal mediation services. We have appointed special mediators. We have reappointed special mediators. We have worked very hard with both parties to help them reach an agreement. However, having said that, we are now at a time where we have to take action.

Let us remember the abysmal record of the Harper government Conservatives when it came to fair and balanced labour relations. They consistently undermined the collecting bargaining process, including legislating the terms of an agreement, introducing Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which was a direct attack on organized labour. We have reversed that legislation.

This is something that we believe is prudent at this time. The Canadian economy and Canadian workers of all different stripes are depending on us to ensure that Canada Post can function this season.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do so.

Generally speaking the member is right, but on occasion, Stephen Harper, through the back door of private members' bills, such as Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, attempted to make profoundly negative changes to Canada's unions. It changed a lot of attitudes towards the union movement, which felt they had a very anti-union government under Stephen Harper, and the Conservatives did use the back door. One of the first actions of our government was to take those two pieces of legislation and right a wrong, which was a good thing.

This government has been very forward-thinking in working with labour, whether on this piece of legislation or other legislation we brought forward, because we understand the importance of having harmony between labour and management. This is something we will continue to strive for in the years ahead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate to start off my comments by referring to the Conservative labour critic's question. He said “table a motion to talk about it”, as if that is a bad thing. That encapsulates the Stephen Harper Conservative government's approach when dealing with labour issues. When I sat in opposition I listened to the government of the day bring in legislation through the back door by way of private members' hour, taking shots at the union movement across Canada.

I can recall the legislation the Conservative government brought in with respect to Canada Post. The Conservatives are trying to give the impression that what we are doing now is similar to what they did at the time. That is truly amazing. What we are doing is nothing remotely close to what they did with respect to the labour front.

I find it interesting that even my New Democrat friends appear to be trying to score some political points on this issue. They are putting aside the concerns of the average Canadian and business and those who have a vested interest in this debate. Both opposition parties are drawing conclusions. Instead of drawing conclusions, why do they not have some faith and some hope in the process that is still in place today?

This government is behaving in a very responsible manner. We understand the importance of the issue. That is why we are discussing this motion that has been tabled by the government.

We really want to see a negotiated agreement. The Prime Minister, the labour minister and all members of this caucus have been very clear on the issue. We do not want to bring in any form of back-to-work legislation. Our first choice is a negotiated agreement. I appeal to individuals around the table, whether it is the union or Canada Post management, to get the job done and get something signed as soon as possible. That is what I am hoping for.

I have listened to New Democrats talk about the plight of postal workers. I do not need to be reminded of that. I was sitting in opposition when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives made profound changes to the services provided to Canadians by Canada Post. I remember the legislation they introduced. It was shameful.

Let me remind the members that back in the days of Stephen Harper, his government brought in reforms that dealt with things such as door-to-door delivery and jacking up the cost of postage stamps. Many individuals believed, myself included, that the Conservatives really wanted to privatize Canada Post. That was the real objective of the Conservative Party. Stephen Harper had a hidden agenda with respect to Canada Post. There was a general lack of respect for postal workers and the whole system.

We believe Canadians respect the system. They want to see a Crown corporation in place that continues to deliver the type of services it has delivered for decades.

When we became government after the last election, it did not take long for the Prime Minister and the minister responsible to strike up a group of individuals that represented Canadians as a whole. That group would sit on a special standing committee of the House or on the committee that was established by the minister to canvass the opinions and thoughts of Canadians in moving forward with Canada Post.

I believe a general consensus was achieved. There might have been a few dissenting individuals within the Conservative ranks, but generally speaking we saw a fairly consistent message that there was a positive future for Canada Post. We recognize the valuable work of our letter carriers, our mail organizers and those who fill the infrastructure do. The backbone, the workers, make Canada Post what it is today. It is recognized even outside of Canada with respect to the valuable contributions they make to our society. We have a changing society, and I will to pick up a bit on that shortly.

I use Canada Post on a regular basis, whether it be for my householders, my ten percenters, my mail or the feedback from my constituents. This is all done through Canada Post. I can assure those people who are following the debate that every member of the Liberal caucus values and appreciates the fine work our postal workers put in day in and day out in order to deliver our mail and ensure that communication is there. It is not only for us as members of Parliament, but those workers provide a service that even goes beyond that.

I have talked to letter carriers who have met with individuals in the community. They grow concerned when mail is not taken out of their postal boxes, whether it is the community box or the mail box on their home. They are concerned that maybe there is a health issue, which, at least in part at times, is dealt with because of a caring people. It even goes over and beyond.

Let us get this upfront. Unlike what the New Democrats are trying to communicate in their spin, we do care, value and appreciate the work those front-line service people provide.

However, as we continue to go through this rotating strike, a vast majority of Canadians will recognize that in the changing times, there is a responsibility. The union group and the management have a responsibility. We are still hopeful. That is one of the reasons we have a federal mediator in the situation today.

When we look at the federal mediation individuals in the conciliatory branch of government, the success rate is well over 90%. Therefore, Ottawa has been indirectly at the table, supporting positive negotiations and encouraging good and healthy negotiations between unions and management.

However, it would be highly irresponsible for the government to sit back and not respond to the needs of the Canadian economy and society as a whole. When I hear in particular my New Democratic friends try to say that we should never legislate back to work legislation, I remind them that it is only the New Democrats who ever say that conclusively. To try to give the impression that the NDP has never brought in back-to-work legislation is just wrong. The New Democrats have done this. They have not done so at the national level, because they have never been in government, but they have been in government in provinces where they have brought in back-to-work legislation.

However, in Ottawa, the New Democrats like to take the moral stand of never ever. Part of being in government means we have to make decisions that are in the best interests of all Canadians, the Canadian economy and the national interest. That is why my New Democrat colleagues need to realize that times have changed. Thirty years ago, there was not the same sort of Internet activity that we have today. They should compare the Yellow Pages from 30 years ago to what they is today. They will see there is a significant difference. There are no Yellow Pages in many homes today.

As an example, with the Internet, we have seen a profound change in the purchase of products. Everything from health to consumables to TVs, just name a few, can now be purchased online. For a vast majority of those purchases, consumers do not pick up the items. Rather, organizations and corporations like Canada Post are relied on to deliver those products. The delivering of those products provides the ongoing growth of our economy and opportunity for seniors to receive, for example, their contact lenses, or other medical requirements or Christmas cards from a grandsons or granddaughters, whatever it may be, all of which is really important.

I cannot provide the percentage breakdown offhand for the amount of merchandise purchased over the Internet and delivered through corporations like Canada Post, but it would definitely be well into the double digits. I like to believe, which may be due to my sense of pride for Canada Post, that Canada Post is leading the way on the delivery of these products. That is why the future for Canada Post, in good part, is so solid going forward.

We are in a very interesting time of the year. We know many companies rely on this busy season to generate the necessary profits to carry them through months like January and February. To believe that is not the case is somewhat insensitive to the needs of small businesses.

The labour critic said that we had this new-found love for small businesses by the Government of Canada. The labour critic is wrong. We understand how important small businesses are to Canada. Quite frankly, they are the backbone of the economy. Helping to feed Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it is going to be driven by businesses of all sizes in every region of our country. We have recognized that from day one.

Members on this side of the House, for example, often talk about the middle-class tax cut, which put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians. Those individuals are spending money in small businesses. That might mean, for example, buying an item on eBay and having it shipped via Canada Post. Whether it is the middle-class tax breaks, or the reduction of the small business tax or the amazing announcements by the Minister of Finance yesterday, this government has the pulse of Canada's small businesses in every region of the country. All our policy directions support small businesses and encourage the growth of Canada's middle class.

If we are to listen to the New Democrats, they are prepared to gamble it away. We know, from provincial experience, they would not do that. At the federal level, they are prepared to make those sorts of statements. It is highly irresponsible because many companies are having a difficult time getting their merchandise to consumers. It is very important. If we start to see job losses as a direct result of a prolonged strike, that could hurt our economy. If we start to see an individual who requires some sort of health care benefit, such as contact lenses, not being delivered in a timely fashion, that also has a negative impact. As much as a good portion of this is about the economy, it is much more than that.

We hear a lot with respect to the politics. I have listened to the debate over the last couple of hours. The Conservative are saying that we are not going far enough. Why would we table a motion today and not debate the legislation? They are anxious. They want the legislation. If it were up to them, not only would we be bringing in legislation, but we would maybe be doing what Stephen Harper did and roll back the wages of the letter carriers. It is truly amazing. We could not believe it when the government of Stephen Harper did that within its legislation.

Further to the right, we have the New Democrats who are left of centre to the right of the Conservatives. Sometimes it gets confusing because they like to work together on certain things. The New Democrats are saying that we should not be doing this, that we should be putting the interests of Canadian small businesses, consumers and those who rely on the services provided to the side. Those really do not matter.

As one of my caucus colleagues said, that is not going to work. At the end of the day, we want to see a negotiated agreement. We are hoping for this. That is what my personal request is for both labour and management. Let us get this issue resolved. However, it would be highly irresponsible for the government not to have something in place if we have to get the mail going. This is of the utmost importance.

I commented on the importance of collective agreements. I have had many opportunities to stand in the chamber. There is a wonderful list of things which we have done as a government to reinforce the importance of labour. Whether it has been in the Manitoba legislature on a debate of final offer selection or the debate we had in Ottawa on getting rid of the old Harper bills, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, I have argued consistently for the importance of collective bargaining and the important role unions play in society.

In 2019, we are going to be recognizing the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. Maybe in response to questions, I will be able to provide further comment on that.

I thank the House for the opportunity to share a few thoughts.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation is to support both parties in reaching an amicable decision, which is better for them both. That is why we made amendments to the law, so it enables both sides to reach an agreement.

We want to use the legislation in the best way, which we have already framed. With our repeal of Bills C-525 and C-377, we amended the Canada Labour Code to make better changes, to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and the implementation of different leaves. We strengthened the occupational health and safety standards and passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment.

These changes to the regulations were considered at the time the parties were brought to the negotiating table. They were given all the opportunities.

[Kamal Khera]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, I have received many calls, including during our constituency week. I have met with many postal workers. I have also met with businesses, individuals and constituents who have been impacted by the strike. As members know, our government has always supported union workers. There is no question that our government has made huge strides with organized labour and Canadian workers.

Since forming government, we have repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 to restore fair and balanced labour relations. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements, and have implemented different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence. In Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards to reflect today's workplaces. We are introducing pay equity legislation to ensure fairness. We are almost doubling the benefits of the wage earner protection program.

We have always had the back of labour unions. We have always stood with them. We will continue to stand beside them and support them.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague on the other side that since forming government, we have been pretty busy. I am proud to have worked personally on repealing Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 to restore fair and balanced labour relations. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from harassment and workplace violence. In Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards to reflect today's workplace. We are introducing pay equity legislation to ensure fairness.

It is quite clear that the Liberals cherish the relationship that we have with our labour organizations. It is important we continue to work with them to find better ways to execute what needs to happen.

In this case, as a government, there has to be a time where action has to happen. We are still hopeful that before this legislation is posted, they can come to a conclusion.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that our government has made huge strides for organized labour and Canadian workers.

We repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 to restore fair and balanced labour relations. have amended the Canada Labour Code. We are modernizing labour standards. Now we are forced to look at this Canada Post situation.

It has been interesting to hear the conversations in the House. I have heard from my NDP colleagues that we should be doing nothing and let the collective process drag out through a very critical business cycle. I have heard from the member across who said that we should have acted earlier.

Does the member not see the value of collective bargaining? Does he not see the value of a allowing a mutually agreeable process to unfold so that these two parties can come together one last time in a mutually satisfactory way?

[Angella MacEwen]

Absolutely. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were awful pieces of legislation that targeted unions. We're very glad that most of that has been undone, particularly in terms of privacy for our members, with Bill C-377.

The Canada Labour Code review is a good opportunity. There's a lot that can be done in terms of recognizing the reality of precarious work that CUPE members in particular are struck by, like contract flipping, like a $15 minimum wage at the federal level, and making it easier to unionize precarious workers so that they can have the support of a union when they need it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

I have one last question, and it's for CUPE and the public service workers.

Our government right now is consulting on revising the Canada Labour Code. We've also, as a government, removed what I would characterize as two anti-union pieces of legislation from our counterparts, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We dealt with that earlier in the mandate.

How important is that to your members, whether they're private sector or public sector union workers—those are hard-working middle-class Canadians—have a level playing field and are able to go to work with the protections and benefits that they deserve?

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this august House for the first time in 2018. We were elected in 2015 and here we are in 2018 already. Life goes so fast. I would like to wish all of the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are tuning in today, a very happy New Year, health, prosperity and happiness. I am very happy to have seen them throughout Parliament’s winter break and during door-to-door events and various activities, including the Christmas gala at my constituency office. I thank them for attending in large numbers.

It is unfortunate that the member across the way has left, but in February 2016, the Gartner report said quite clearly that the Phoenix system had major problems and should not be implemented. The report also featured some important recommendations that would have allowed us to avoid the considerable problems now facing public servants, if only the Liberal government had shown as much wisdom as we have, and followed those recommendations and if it had not given the project the green light in February 2016.

I would like to respond to certain allegations by my Liberal colleagues today, but I must first say that Bill C-62 is an outright abdication by the executive for electoral gains. In 2015, we Conservatives were forced to call an election four months early because the major unions in Canada would not stop making electoral expenditures day after day, week after week, to help either the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, because those parties had apparently given them what they wanted. They absolutely wanted to defeat the Conservatives and were spending millions of dollars on advertising against us on television, on the radio and in print media. That is why it was the longest election in Canadian history. We were honourable and we had to respond to those daily frontal media attacks from the unions. We therefore triggered the election campaign to be able to use electoral funds ourselves to respond to those attacks.

Without even realizing it, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge accurately described this bill when he said that his government is working hand-in-hand with the major unions. He could not have said it better. With Bill C-62, the government is not only abdicating its responsibilities to the benefit of big union bosses, who claim to be great leaders who want to protect workers, but it is also returning the favour to the major unions that supported the Liberal Party in 2015 to bring down one of the best governments in the history of Canada. In 10 years, the previous Conservative government got Canada through the biggest economic crisis in world history since the Great Depression in 1929 and 1930. In short, it is shameful that these unions interfered in an election campaign without the support of their members.

Furthermore, I am fed up of hearing our colleague from Winnipeg North portray himself as the paragon of universal virtue, as if the Liberal government was the only one to have good intentions and to work for the well-being of public servants, for Canadians and for humanity. It is completely ridiculous. Every Canadian government, be it Liberal or Conservative, works for the well-being of this country. Will they one day stop harping on about these platitudes, telling us that Conservatives do not work for the well-being of all Canadians or all of humanity? It is utter nonsense, and I am starting to get really fed up. It is extreme arrogance. We respect public servants, and that is why we had two objectives when we introduced Bills C-377 and C-525.

First, we wanted to ensure the sustainability of public service pensions. If there is one thing we can do to show respect for our public servants, who work very hard for Canada, and keep the government apparatus running smoothly, it is to ensure that, when the day comes, they will retire with honour and dignity, and have access to a sustainable, vital pension that really exists.

When we came to power after the era of Paul Martin and the Liberals from 1990 to 2004, we had to face the facts. Not only had millions of sick days been banked, be we could foresee some major deficits in the public service pension fund in the following decades. Together, both of these things threaten not only existing pension funds as they now stand, but also access to these pension funds for any public servant retiring in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.

We have so much respect for public servants that we made difficult decisions for them. They are not the executive, the government is. We made decisions to ensure that they could retire with dignity when the time came. That was Bill C-377. There was also Bill C-525 to promote democracy in labour organizations and unions in Canada.

This House is one of the most democratic in the world, if not the most democratic. Is it any wonder that we did everything in our power to further promote democracy within unions?

It is unfathomable that one of the first things the Liberals did after arriving on Parliament Hill was to try to repeal the provision of Bill C-525 that allows for a secret vote at union meetings. There are sometimes thousands of people at union meetings. There is intimidation. There is strong-arming. Things get rowdy. Not all Canadians have the courage to voice their opinion, as they may be afraid of being bullied. Have we not been talking for weeks and months about the many types of bullying in Canadian society? In the world of unions, there is bullying. It is no secret. It is a huge factor.

We were working not only for public servants, but also for workers. We wanted to give them a secret ballot so they could vote transparently and without fear of recrimination to determine the direction of their union leadership and the decisions made.

With the Liberals, we are dealing with a party that is completely blind. It is blind to the sustainability of pension funds in the public sector and sometimes the private sector. It is even blind to the sustainability of insurance for seniors in Canada. We made a decision that I found to be very interesting as a young man. I am now 31 years old and was 27 at the time. We decided to raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. That was probably one of the most courageous decisions for an OECD country, for a G7 country. It was clearly something that needed to be done.

When he was a Bay Street tycoon in Toronto, the Minister of Finance wrote a fantastic book in which he said that this was exactly what needed to be done and that Mr. Harper’s government had made a very good decision.

The member for Winnipeg North should set a better example for all his colleagues. He should stop being arrogant, truly work for public servants, resolve the problems with Phoenix, and stop claiming he has the moral high ground.

We worked for workers with Bill C-525 to give them a secret ballot. We worked with public servants to ensure the sustainability of their pension funds with Bill C-377.

I will close by saying that Bill C-62 is an abdication by the executive in favour of the major unions. The purpose of this bill is to reward them in order to obtain electoral gains in 2019.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of our platform commitments was to re-establish a relationship with both public sector unions and private sector unions, from coast to coast to coast, based on trust, faith, and collective bargaining rights for all workers and those that had recently been certified. We have done that.

We have repealed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. We have put provisions in place. We re-established a balance between bargaining agents for both the employer and the employee. That is something I am proud of. That is something my constituents back home in Vaughan--Woodbridge are proud of. We brought balance back to the collective bargaining process.

We need to ensure that when collective bargaining takes place, it takes place not on a unilateral basis, as my Conservative colleagues liked to do and what they imposed when they were in government, but in a fair and balanced manner, where people come together and negotiate an agreement that is a win for both sides.

I am proud that our government has fulfilled those commitments. I am proud that our government continues to work with both public sector unions and private sector unions to ensure that we have a strong middle class, because when bargaining agents are able to come together, negotiate freely, and negotiate a great deal, the middle class benefits and the Canadian economy benefits.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this occasion to rise in support of Bill C-62.

I wish to note I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The bill would repeal collective bargaining changes for the public service passed in 2013.

It would also repeal legislation that would have allowed a government to override the collective bargaining process and unilaterally impose a short-term disability plan. Bill C-62 does this by combining Bills C-5 and C-34.

It is important to note that combining these two bills would make no substantive changes compared to the earlier bills. It would simply incorporate the adjustments necessary to combine proposals regarding sick leave, collective bargaining, and essential services for the federal public service into one piece of legislation moving forward.

I will begin with the contentious changes made in 2013.

Previously, bargaining agents had a say in determining which services were declared essential. However, the 2013 legislation took this away and put the right to determine essential services exclusively in the hands of the employer.

In addition, bargaining agents were no longer given the chance to determine which dispute resolution process they wished to use should the parties reach an impasse in bargaining. Instead, conciliation or strike was established as a default dispute resolution mechanism.

Moreover, arbitration boards and other labour bodies were required to give more weight to some factors over others when setting or recommending appropriate levels of compensation for public servants. These and other changes were made without consultation with our public sector partners.

The government does not support such an approach. We believe that the right of collective bargaining is vital to protecting the rights of Canadian workers, and we believe that effective collective bargaining involves discussion, negotiation, and compromise.

We must not roll back the fundamental labour rights that unions have worked so hard to secure. Instead, we need to ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments. To that end, in January 2016, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation to repeal Bills C-377 and C-525.

The legislation would remove provisions that make it harder for unions to be certified and easier for them to be decertified. It would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove the onerous and redundant requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide specific information annually to the minister of national revenue. This includes information on non-labour activities that are then made available to the public.

As hon. members are well aware, legislation is already in place to ensure that unions make financial information available and are accountable to their members.

Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code requires unions to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, rendering these additional reporting requirements unnecessary.

The bill before us today is the latest in a series of actions the government has taken to demonstrate its commitment to bargaining in good faith with public service bargaining agents. It fulfills a commitment we made to repeal legislation that had provided the government with the authority to establish and modify terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees, to establish a short-term disability plan outside collective bargaining, and to modify long-term disability programs in the core public administration. It would also restore the labour relations regime that existed prior to 2013.

It also supports collaborative management-union relations. Unions play a vital role in protecting workers' rights and growing the middle class, and we respect unions and the members they represent.

In the case of the federal public service, I am talking about the people who protect the health of Canadians by inspecting our food to make sure it is safe for us to eat. I am talking about the people who ensure that Canadians have access to safe and effective health products by monitoring everything from medical devices to prescription medications. It is public service employees across this country who administer income support programs, such as old age security benefits, that provide Canadian seniors with an important source of income.

Our public service employees come from all walks of life. They have an incredible range of expertise and experience that the government relies on to provide services to Canadians across the country and around the world.

If we truly respect our public service employees, we cannot support an approach that disregards or fails to respect the right to bargain collectively.

We want public service employees to be proud of the work they do. We want the public service to be a place that attracts our best and brightest minds.

We need to think about college and university students. We want them to see the public service not only as the perfect place to launch their careers, but also as the perfect place to build a country. All they have to do is look at the amazing things public servants are doing.

Recently, public servants supported the government's goal of helping Canadians achieve a safe, secure, and dignified retirement by working co-operatively with their provincial and territorial counterparts so that Canada's finance ministers could strengthen the Canada pension plan, yes, the enhanced Canada pension plan.

In 2016, they answered the call to help their fellow citizens displaced by the Fort McMurray wildfires.

They worked tirelessly to integrate tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into Canadian society.

When we encourage federal employees to give fearless advice, when we trust them to make responsible decisions, and when we respect them for their skill and expertise, these are the kinds of results that are possible.

Bill C-62 is strong proof of our commitment to restore a culture of respect for and within the public service.

I urge all members who believe in the principles of fairness and respect to join us in supporting Bill C-62.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to share the official opposition's opinion on Bill C-62. As I said a few moments ago during the question and comment period following the speech given by the President of the Treasury Board, we are opposed to this bill. We think that it seeks to please union bosses rather than making public servants a priority.

According to the government, this bill seeks to improve the bargaining process, but we do not think that the government is taking the right approach. We do not think that this bill actually improves the process; rather, it seems its aim is to please union bosses. During the last election, those union bosses were prepared to invest $5 million in advertising just before the election, without any regard for campaign finance laws, just to hurt the government that was duly elected by Canadians in 2011. The political party that was in office at that time, the Conservative Party did what it could to respond, but of course it was at a disadvantage in terms of spending money and accountability. I will come back to that a little later.

Our concern with this bill is that this is payback. It is not the first payback by Liberal government to the union's leader, because we saw it a year and a half ago when the government tabled Bill C-4. Bill C-4 was established by the government to kill two pieces of legislation we introduced when we were in office, which would permit and give more democracy and transparency in the union system.

This Liberal bill is the logical next step for the Liberals, although certainly not for us, and fits in nicely with what the government is doing to thank union leaders for their generous support during the last election campaign. As I was saying earlier, this bill seeks to establish certain bargaining measures. However, make no mistake, the Liberals' real goal here is to make the union leaders happy with the government's position. This falls clearly in line with the Liberal policy to please union leaders.

Almost two years ago to the day, the then minister of labour, an MP from Alberta, introduced Bill C-4. I was the official opposition employment critic at the time so I worked with the minister, together with my friend, the hon. member for Foothills. We fought tirelessly against that bill, which sought to annihilate two bills that were introduced and passed by the Conservatives under the previous prime minister between 2011 and 2015. Those two bills, C-377 and C-525, addressed democracy, transparency, and accountability of unions.

We Conservatives believe that if workers are to have the respect they deserve, they must be given the necessary tools. This includes asking union leaders to disclose their salaries and financial statements to the public. At the time, it was argued that this was something they could do themselves. However, when a union member pays his union dues, he is entitled to a tax refund. That concerns all Canadians, because it is their money being handed out as tax refunds, to the tune of $500 million.

Union leaders were not pleased that we were asking them to disclose all their expenses and salaries. However, when you have nothing to hide, you have a clear conscience. Of course, their natural allies, the Liberals, opposed the move and pledged to reverse the decision, which is tantamount to doing away with transparency. Thus, one of the first legislative positions of this very government, which boasts about being the most transparent in history, was an attack on union transparency.

This was the first bill that was killed by Bill C-4. The other bill was about democracy inside the union. If workers wanted unions in their shops, we asked to have consultation, but private consultation, a secret ballot. This is the best way to ensure people will be represented. The will of the people will be expressed with a lot of strength under secret ballots.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago you were elected by secret ballot, which is good. Who can oppose secret ballots in the House of Commons? When we elect a Speaker of the House, it is by secret ballot. However, the Liberals do not want to have secret ballots when workers decide whether to create unions in their shops. That is not fair. This is why we were, and still are, the champions of democracy and transparency in unions. Why are we champions of that? First and foremost, the most important people in the workforce are the workers, not the union bosses.

However, that is what the Liberals would do with this bill. The Liberals are on the side of union bosses instead of being the champions of the workers. I can assure the House that we will always be on the side of the workers. The government wants to kill that democracy and transparency.

That is what the Liberal government is trying to do with a series of bills to please union bosses and chip away at, if not wipe out entirely, everything the Conservative government did to enhance union transparency and democracy. That is why we still oppose this bill, which we do not think is right.

I should also point out that the government's approach has been a bit sloppy. Bill C-62 is a mash-up of two previously introduced bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-34. Bill C-5 was introduced in February 2016, which is almost two years ago now, and Bill C-34 was introduced in November 2016. The Liberals have extracted elements of both bills and inserted them into the bill we are debating today. Aside from the fact that we disagree with the provisions in the bill, which is no secret, we expected greater diligence from the government on this matter. They are the ones who will have to answer for it, though.

Members will recall the unfortunate statements made almost two years ago when debating Bill C-4 in the House. One of the arguments made by Liberal opponents was that the bills we passed, namely Bills C-377 and C-525, were backdoor bills. One of the most eminent members of the Liberal caucus, the member for Winnipeg North, said this. We know this member often rises to speak. He is vocal in the House, to say the least.

Those were sad memories for me when my friend, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, called the two pieces of legislation “backdoor bills”. They were private members' bills. That is disrespectful. Each and every member of the House is a front-door member. Therefore, when we table something, it is tabled by the front door. There are no backdoor members, no backdoor pieces of legislation, no backdoor nothing. Everything is done by front-door members of Parliament, from whatever party. That is where we stand.

This experienced member's comments were an insult to all his government colleagues who introduce private members' bills, which we Conservatives respect even though we may not agree with them. That concludes my remarks on this bill.

We are very concerned about this bill. We believe that it is important to think of the workers first and foremost. We realize that government officials and, of course, union officials are in the midst of negotiations.

That goes without saying. One cannot negotiate with 500,000 people. We understand that, but those 500,000 people must trust the representatives they appoint to negotiate with government officials. The best way to establish this trust, to strengthen it, to cement it, if you will, is to ensure that there is greater transparency and democracy within unions, and the best way to achieve that is to have full disclosure. Then, if they want to make that leap and establish a union, they can use the secret ballot. That is the best way and the one which can be influenced the least, whether in a positive or negative manner. Unfortunately, this government has directly attacked this principle, which we consider to be fundamental.

In response to my question, the President of the Treasury Board referred to certain financial realities in Canada, but he forgot to mention a few things, particularly when he talked about support for families. The foremost duty of the President of the Treasury Board is to balance the books. Theoretically, he is the government's “Mister No”, the person who says yes or no to government spending. Why did he say yes to the first plan for government assistance for children, when the government forgot to take into account one minor detail, namely, inflation? As a result of this oversight, four years from now, parents will be getting less than they did from our former government six years earlier. Way to go, guys; that is great.

Any junior accounting technician in a company who forgot to calculate inflation would be kicked to the curb. How is it possible that the President of the Treasury Board, whose primary duty, undertaken at the behest of the Prime Minister, is to make sure that the numbers add up, somehow missed this administrative detail, namely calculating inflation? That is pathetic. He should be ashamed of such an oversight.

On another note, we also provided assistance for children, but we had a balanced budget. I am appealing to the President of the Treasury Board's dignity and sense of responsibility. He has a duty to balance the books. This government is running colossal and compulsive deficits.

Two and a half years ago, the Liberal Party campaigned on running small deficits during the first three years and balancing the budget in 2019 when the economy is strong. That was the Liberal promise. Where are we today? This government has created deficits that are two and a half times larger than promised, and worse yet, it has no clue how it is going to return to a balanced budget. Never in the history of Canada, in peacetime, has a government had a strong economy and no plan to achieve zero deficit. It is unacceptable because the deficit leads to debt that will be left to our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to contend with.

I call on the President of the Treasury Board to tighten the purse strings. He is an experienced parliamentarian who has been serving this country for over 20 years in different capacities and on behalf of different parties. I appeal to his dignity and ask him to tighten the purse strings and especially to send Canadians a clear message that, just because his government has been overspending, does not mean that it will not balance the budget one of these days.

We think that the government should have a minimum plan to balance the budget. Will the government do so in 2019, as it promised? Will it do so in 2045, as the finance department's most recent report indicates will be the case if nothing changes? That would be absolutely ridiculous, but it would be even worse if the government had no plan at all for balancing the budget. Unfortunately, that is in fact the case. This government does not have a plan, and we very strongly condemn it for that. We are calling on the government to, at the very least, determine when it will balance the budget.

The government is turning its back on ordinary workers as it seeks to please its union leader partners and friends.

Ordinary federal employees have been suffering for almost two years now because of the Liberal government's bad decision to give the go-ahead to implement Phoenix. That is today's reality. We are gathered here in the House to talk about a bill that will make union bosses very happy. Meanwhile, unionized workers are still suffering as a result of the Phoenix problem. We have to be very careful here. Our thoughts are with all the heads of households and workers who have been hit hard by the Phoenix pay system problems. Enough can never be said and done to help these people. Canadian workers in my riding and the other 337 ridings have had their lives turned upside down by the Phoenix pay system.

A fact is a fact. The record shows that under the former government the ministers responsible put a kibosh on this project on two occasions. Both in July 2015 and September 2015, the ministers said that the Phoenix pay system should not be deployed because it was too risky. In January 2016, reports suggested not moving forward because the systems were not ready, it still had bugs, and most departmental financial directors recommended putting the project on hold. Unfortunately, on February 24 the government gave the go-ahead. In three weeks and a few hours, Phoenix will have been up and running for two years. A few weeks later, on April 26, the second phase of the Phoenix system was implemented. Nothing was done for 18 months even though alarms were sounding and red flags were raised all over the place. It took the Liberals months to admit that there was a problem.

It is sad that we are creating a bill that caters to union bosses instead of focusing on workers. Workers should be the priority, especially for the President of the Treasury Board, who claims that the government wants to be fair and equitable and says he wants to think positively and work together with the public service. However, today we are debating a bill introduced by the government in an attempt to pander to union bosses, instead of focusing first and foremost on the employees working in the public service.

For these reasons, we are going to vote against Bill C-62, because we feel it caters exclusively to union bosses. In fact, that was the same problem we had with Bill C-4, which attacked and demolished the fundamental principles of democracy and union transparency, principles that we and all workers hold dear. Bill C-62 is the logical but deplorable sequel to Bill C-4, which was tabled by the government almost two years ago now. We can therefore assure workers that we will always be on their side, not on the side of bosses and unions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-62. The bill would restore fair public service labour laws that respect the collective bargaining process. It recognizes the important role of unions in protecting the rights of workers and in helping grow Canada's middle class.

Bill C-62 affirms the Canadian values of fairness and justice. It combines the government's previous bills C-5 and C-34. It makes no substantive changes to the earlier bills; it simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine proposals regarding sick leave, collective bargaining, and essential services for the federal public service into one piece of legislation. Merging these two bills into one is an efficient way to restore the equity and balance in our public service labour relations regime that existed before the legislative changes were introduced by the Harper Conservatives in 2013.

In part, Bill C-62 would repeal contentious sections of Bill C-59, which was a piece of legislation introduced, without consultation, through an omnibus budget bill by the previous government. Bill C-59 had given the government the authority to essentially ignore the public service labour relations act of the day and unilaterally modify the labour relations law that applies to and protects public servants. It would have allowed the government to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants without negotiation or consultation.

On taking office, our government committed to not exercise the powers given to the government in Bill C-59, and now we are following through on our commitment by repealing the legislation itself.

Public servants and their representatives have made their position on the law very clear. They are upset and believe that the law violates their right to participate in a meaningful collective bargaining process.

We agree with the public service that this law brought in changes that were neither fair nor balanced. That is why we are acting to repeal them. Bill C-62 also repeals the most contentious changes made to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act in 2013. These include changes that allowed the employer to designate essential services unilaterally, to make conciliation with the right to strike the default process for resolving conflicts, and to impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making a recommendation or award.

The amendments immediately created an antagonistic labour relations regime and made employer-bargaining agent relations worse. A number of unions even brought charter challenges related to these provisions. We have every reason to believe that such challenges would have been allowed by the courts.

In fact, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Saskatchewan's essential services legislation, which included very similar provisions to the 2013 federal legislation. However, the decision to repeal these regressive pieces of Conservative legislation is not just the legal thing to do. It is the right thing to do. We studied the situation closely. We met with public servants and the organizations who represent them. We recognized that the current situation was unsustainable and indefensible, both legally and morally. As a result, Bill C-62 reverses the changes to the act that gave the government the exclusive right to unilaterally determine which services are essential. Rather, the government will work with public sector bargaining agents to both identify and agree on essential service positions.

In addition, under the new legislation, bargaining agents will have the choice once again to determine which dispute resolution process they wish to use in the event of an impasse in bargaining. They will be able to select either arbitration or conciliation with the right to strike.

As well, public interest commissions and arbitration boards will be able to determine for themselves how much weight to give the many factors that come into play when making their decisions, factors like compensation that influence the terms and conditions of today's modern workforce.

This is how the system worked before the amendments of 2013. I look forward to getting back to a collaborative and fair approach once Bill C-62 receives royal assent.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable the government to keep an important promise it made to public service employees, their unions, and Canadians.

That was our promise to negotiate in good faith with bargaining agents to reach fair agreements that are fair and reasonable for federal employees and for Canadian taxpayers. The facts are clear in terms of the previous government's lack of commitment to bargaining in good faith.

When our government took office in 2015, all the collective bargaining agreements with public servants had expired. In fact, there were 27 collective bargaining agreements with 15 bargaining units. They had all expired under the previous government. Some of them had expired for almost four years. No public servants had collective bargaining agreements when we formed office. We made it clear that we would work with public servants. We would negotiate in good faith. After two years of hard work and good faith negotiations, we have achieved deals that now represent 91% of public servants. Thus, 91% of public servants now have collective bargaining agreements that were negotiated in good faith.

That success in concluding collective agreements was one achieved in partnership. From the public service we worked closely with people like Robyn Benson from PSAC and Debi Daviau from PIPSC. We worked together, not just on areas of economic increase but on other areas where we can improve the quality of the lives of public servants, and work with them to improve the outcomes for the Canadian public, the people we all serve, those of us on the elected level and the public service, the professional public service we have in Canada, which is one of the most effective anywhere in the world.

This act today, Bill C-62, continues our work toward restoring balanced labour laws that recognize the important role of our public service and the unions that represent them. In this system, the employer-employee relationship is more equal, with both parties within our approach having crucial roles in ensuring workers receive decent pay, are treated fairly, and work in safe, healthy work environments.

Restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service has been and is a priority of our government, a culture that encourages federal employees and the government to work together to fulfill our commitments to Canadians. Ultimately, we are all working together to improve the lives of citizens. The bottom line is that Bill C-62 will undo the measures that stacked the deck in favour of the employer and against the public servants and the bargaining agents representing them. It also highlights our ongoing commitment to support the Public Service of Canada.

As a society we must never roll back fundamental labour rights that unions have worked very hard to secure. Rather, we need to always ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments.

Members may remember how in January 2016 the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation, Bill C-4, to repeal two other unfair labour law bills from the previous government, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and how we voted to support that legislation in the autumn of 2016. Those two bills by the former government introduced a number of contentious measures related to the financial disclosure process of unions and their certification.

Bill C-4, which received royal assent, reversed those provisions that would have made it harder for unions to be certified and easier for them to be decertified. It also amended the Income Tax Act to remove the onerous and redundant requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide specific information annually to the Minister of National Revenue. This included information on the non-labour activities, which would then have been made available to the public. We already had laws in place prior to that, which ensured unions are, in fact, financially transparent and accountable to members.

What is more, the contentious measures this legislation introduced were not formulated in accordance with the principles of respectful consultation. This includes, in terms of consultation, the traditional tripartite consultation process among the employer, unions, and governments normally used whenever we consider reforming labour relations. Therefore, the laws introduced by the previous government were deeply flawed and we, quite rightly, moved to repeal them.

My point is that the bill we are considering today is only the latest in a series of actions that demonstrate the government's commitment to bargaining in good faith with labour leaders and public service bargaining agents. This is of tremendous importance, not only to the welfare of our public service employees but to Canadian citizens, whom we all work to serve. Labour unions play an important role in protecting the rights of workers and in growing the middle class. We respect them and the people they represent.

It is public service employees who administer Canada's income support programs, such as the old age security benefit, for instance, that provides seniors with an important source of income. They are the RCMP and the public servants who helped thousands of asylum seekers who came to Canada earlier this year, as an example. They are the people who help fellow citizens displaced by wildfires. They are the public servants who serve Canadians day in, day out, and they come from all walks of life. They offer an incredible range of expertise and experience that the government draws on to ensure the delivery of services to people across Canada, and, in fact, around the globe.

We need our public service employees to be respected for the great work they do. More than that, we also want young people graduating from our colleges and universities to see the public service as not just a great place to build a career but a great place to build a country. I often speak to young people who are interested in entering the public service. Some of them, for instance, are involved in modern digital work and what I explain to them when they are looking at their options is that we cannot give them the stock options that they may receive with a tech start-up, but we can give them something bigger and that is an opportunity to paint on a larger canvas and improve the lives of Canadians. I would encourage all young people to consider spending at least part of their lives in public service, either within the professional public service or at the political level. The opportunity to improve the lives of our fellow citizens is a rare and important one.

To do that, we need to make some fundamental changes to the public service. We need the public service to be less hierarchical. We need to make it easier for people with ideas and ambition to come into the public service to make a difference, and potentially go back out after tackling some specific projects. There is a lot of work we need to do, but I continue to believe that the public service, either at the professional level within the Public Service of Canada or at the political level, remains one of the best ways one can actually improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Throughout our history, our public service unions and, broadly, our labour unions have been a force of positive change. They have fought to secure the benefits that Canadian workers now take for granted, whether it is a minimum wage or a five-day workweek, parental leave or health and safety regulations. When labour relations are balanced and fair, Canadian workers benefit, but the country does as a whole as well. In fact, the economy does as a whole.

Unions and employers must be on an equal footing when it comes to negotiating wages and other important issues and benefits that come up in the modern workplace. In the federal public sector, federal employees won the right to collective bargaining in 1967. At the time, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said in Parliament that this right is “rooted in the concept of equity and equality between the government as employer and organizations representing its employees”.

We are continuing to fight for this right today. The bill being considered today is strong proof of that principle and reflects that. It is strong proof of our commitment to restore a culture of respect for and within the public service. It is proof of the faith we have in Canadians and the positive and uniting values that hold our country together.

I am proud of the work we are doing as a government, and much of the work we are doing as a Parliament in the discussion of these issues, and also of the restoration of positive working relations with the labour unions, the labour movement, and the federal public service. I want to thank all hon. members of the House who have supported and continue to support our efforts to restore fairer public service labour laws.

As parliamentarians, our shared challenge is to continue to work in the spirit of respect and engagement. All of us can do this by supporting Bill C-62. It would go a long way toward recognizing the important role of our federal public service and the unions, the bargaining agents who represent them and protect their rights. It is the right way to show our support for our professional and exceptional public service employees and to recognize the important work they do every day on behalf of all of us in improving the lives of our citizens.

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, a riding whose name will change in due time. I want to reassure her straight off that the official opposition fully agrees with the substance of the bill and that we will be supporting the measure.

As my hon. colleague has shown, there is indeed a major anomaly in the name of the riding, which refers to Lacolle, a place that is not even located in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, but rather in that of Saint-Jean.

On a related note, the crossing at the American border is still known as Lacolle, even though that refers to the municipality of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. I thank my collague for that important clarification. In my own riding, in Quebec City, the Jean Lesage international airport is often referred to as L'Ancienne-Lorette airport, and yet, it is not located in L'Ancienne-Lorette, but rather in Quebec, but it still goes by its old name, even though L'Ancienne-Lorette is across the street. Much to my disappointment, I do not represent the Quebec City airport. It is a shame because aviation is a passion of mine, as I have often mentioned to the Minister of Transport. The airport and surrounding area are represented by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, whom I value and respect.

We therefore agree with the change and appreciate the member's clarifications. She did a great job giving us the history of her riding and its parishes and towns and explaining the importance that should rightly be placed on having accurate names. I have two simple questions for my colleague regarding minor concerns.

First of all, I have always found it a little strange, to put it politely, that the names of federal ridings are so long. As I learned from the member, they cannot be more than 50 characters, but that seems very long to me. I always have a hard time remembering the name of the riding of my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, which is not too far from my riding. Federal riding names can go on forever. Look at my colleague from Foothills. It is one word. It is simple, impossible to mess up. Louis-Saint-Laurent is the name of a former prime minister, so people do not mess that up either. However, when ridings have four or five names stuck together, even if it is under 50 characters, I still think that is too long.

I mention this because the member is proposing that her riding be renamed Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. If this is what the people want, I have no problem with it, and I support the member, since she took the time to listen to the people. However, I was quite surprised to see that they wanted to change a relatively short name to a rather longer name. I recognize that this is perfectly legitimate, historically speaking.

Furthermore, I am just as surprised as my colleague from Lethbridge and the NDP member that this member chose to raise this important issue, which we do support, in a private member's bill, when if she had just waited a bit, she could have included it in the omnibus bill that the minister will be introducing soon.

For the information of those watching and listening, every 10 years, the electoral map and the riding names are reviewed. In a so-called omnibus bill, which we have no problem with, the government includes amendments proposed by members. Members can be for or against them. It is a legitimate debate.

It is unfortunate that my colleague instead chose to go out on her own by introducing a private member's bill, instead of joining the 337 other members of Parliament who are going to participate in good faith in the government's process, which has the support of parliamentarians.

We all recognize and will fight for the right of the member to table that kind of bill. However, I will express my surprise, because she should have used another way to achieve exactly the same goals. We do support the goals, and we recognize that the population will too. That is fantastic and we do support it 100%. However, we are a bit surprised that she tabled a a private member's bill.

For us, a private member's bill is an important bill. A private member's bill is a front door bill. Why do I say that? It is because less than two years ago in the House, which my colleague from Foothills will remember, there was a strong debate about Bill C-4, introduced by the government, which was to kill two private members' bills tabled in the previous Parliament. They were Bill C-525 about democracy and unions, and Bill C-377 about transparency and unions. Those bills were tabled by Conservative members, but not the government.

For us, those private members' bills were front door bills. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary for the prime minister said many times in the House that the Conservative government used back door bills to table those pieces of legislation. What an insult. All members in this House are front door members. All bills tabled in this House are front door bills. No one here is a back door member, and no one here tables back door bills, contrary to what the member for Winnipeg North said so many times less than two years ago.

I am going to repeat what I just said. I want to make it clear that for us, all bills are front-door bills, regardless of whether they are private members' bills or government bills, legislative bills or money bills.

Less than two years ago, the member for Winnipeg North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, no less, made a huge deal out of things and told the House that the Conservative government had used backdoor bills. These were private members' bills. These bills were about union democracy and union transparency. Sadly, they were killed off by Bill C-4, a bill tabled, debated, and passed by the Liberal government.

To be clear for the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, and I am sorry to refer to her with that title, but I know it will be over in less than two years, Conservatives support the will of the people 100%. We appreciate the hard work that has been done by the member, the fact that she listened to her constituents, and did her homework. That is fantastic. We are just a little surprised by how many members will have new titles, but if that is the will of the people, we will recognize and respect it. We are also a little surprised that instead of getting on the train, and I do not know if that is the right expression in English.

Instead of jumping on the omnibus bill bandwagon, the member decided to go a different route.

Instead of going with an omnibus bill, which we recognize she has the right to do, she decided to go with a private member's bill, while so many other issues could have been addressed as opposed to changing the name of a riding. This could have been achieved with an omnibus bill.

I want to reiterate that we agree with Bill C-377.

Public Safety

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the view expressed by my hon. colleague that the government has been unfair in its contract negotiations with Canada's border guards.

Border Services officers and other peace officers in Canada have our government's utmost respect for the work they do and the service they provide to Canadians every day.

I understand his concerns about these public servants. Members will no doubt recall that, shortly after the current government took office, the President of the Treasury Board contacted public service unions and promised to bargain fairly with them. We never reneged on that commitment. As result, we have reached 19 agreements with the bargaining agents that represent over 95% of public servants employed by Treasury Board.

This is strong proof of our commitment to negotiate in good faith and reach agreements that are fair and balanced. In December 2016, we concluded our first of four tentative agreements with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Since then we have reached 15 more agreements with a number of other bargaining agents, including settlements with four of the five bargaining groups in the core public administration represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is the very same union that represents the border guards.

We are determined to reach agreements with the other bargaining units by negotiating respectfully and in good faith. As an expression of our good faith, the government has also introduced a number of initiatives to repeal laws that were seen as anti-union.

We have already repealed two laws, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, related to the financial disclosure processes of unions and their certification. These bills were repealed as they had not been formulated in accordance with the principles of consultation. Furthermore, we introduced legislation, Bill C-5, to repeal the controversial legislation that gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system; and again, on November 28, the government introduced another piece of legislation, Bill C-34, to repeal changes made to the Public Service Labour Relations Act in 2013.

These changes gave the employer the unilateral right to designate essential services and took away the unions' right to resort to third party dispute resolution. We have a solid track record when it comes to bargaining in good faith, which clearly shows our desire to achieve responsible outcomes for all parties.

With respect to the border services' bargaining unit of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we were disappointed that we were not able to reach agreements through mediated negotiations, but we do remain open to continuing negotiations and to reaching an agreement that is fair and reasonable for these very important employees of Canada and Canadians.

Canada Labour Code

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North to give him an opportunity to get a few words on the record. I am sure everybody is looking to forward that.

I am happy to rise today to speak on the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, but first I want to say that I am very pleased that the Senate chose to accept to repeal Bill C-377 in its entirety. I will focus my comments today on the amendments that relate specifically to the repeal of Bill C-525, which deals with the fundamental right of workers to organize themselves into a union.

Everyone, including labour, employers, and government, wants a fair and legitimate certification process that would do two things. First, it would allow workers to make a free and informed decision about whether they want to join a union or not; second, it would be created through a fair and balanced tripartite consensus process that is based on fact, not ideology, and in which the changes to be made would not be imposed on the stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence for the need for Bill C-525 and the united opposition to the process it imposed on labour relations systems made Bill C-525 unsuitable legislation for changing a fundamental aspect of the Canada Labour Code. That is why I oppose the Senate amendments and would respectfully ask members of this House to do the same.

Let me share with the House the reasons for my opposition.

My opposition is first to the process through which Bill C-525 was introduced and passed. I know proponents of the bill say the process is unimportant and that the only thing that matters is the secret ballot. It is simply a case of “the ends justify the means” approach that we saw with the previous government.

This approach not only shows a complete lack of knowledge about good labour relations but also a total disrespect to the parties involved, the employers, labour practitioners, and regulators who have the responsibility to enforce a law that was developed through a poisoned process. Labour law systems are very complex, and the ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of labour and management that must be respected if and when reforms are to be made.

The stakeholders in the federal labour sector long ago developed a proven process to amend federal labour legislation. It is known as the tripartite process. As a result, there exists a delicate balance that serves fairly the interests of employers, unions, workers, and the Canadian economy.

The last major consultative review of part one of the Canada Labour Code occurred in 1995, and the subsequent report, entitled “Seeking a balance” was authored by the well-respected labour-neutral Andrew Sims.

Mr. Sims said that if labour laws are to be changed, it should be done because there is a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public's interest, and it should be done on a consensus basis. Based on the testimony in the House of Commons and the testimony the committee heard from the major employer and employee groups as well as the evidence from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Bill C-525 failed to meet that standard.

Beyond the process, let us talk about the evidence, or the lack thereof, for Bill C-525. The sponsor of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, had justified the necessity for his bill by saying:

...when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

I think it would be concerning to everyone if in fact there was indeed a case such as this. Fortunately, it is simply not true. According to Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have been only two founded certification complaints against unions in 4,000 decisions rendered in the prior 10 years before Bill C-525 was passed. In fact, there were more founded complaints against employers than against unions.

A past chairperson of the CIRB, Elizabeth MacPherson, stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem.” There was no evidence ever given to show that the federal card check system was not working in the best interests of workers in either its administrative effectiveness or in its abuse by unions to coerce workers to unionize. What the evidence shows is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference is a real phenomenon and is the reason a mandatory vote system produces fewer union certifications.

Sara Slinn was referred to earlier in a previous speech. She testified at the Senate committee during the study of Bill C-525. She is a very well-respected expert on the issue. She said:

In sum, the research evidence shows that there is no support for the notion that votes are necessarily a superior mechanism to cards for determining union representation. Nor does it support the notion that union intimidation or pressure is a substantial phenomenon in certification. What it does demonstrate is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference is a real phenomenon. It's effective, and it's more effective under votes than card-based mechanisms.

What is interesting to note is that the labour program under the previous government actually competed a study on the issue of card check versus mandatory voting at the same time Bill C-525 was being debated. That study concluded that:

...the use of [a mandatory vote] regime has been an important factor in the decline in union density in the Canadian business sector.

Unfortunately, the previous government buried that study, and it was only released when we took over the reins of government. It is a fair question to ask why that report was not released. I believe it was not made public because the report's conclusion supports the independent research that shows the answers to the critical question of why union density decreases under mandatory vote versus card check. The evidence shows it is not because workers do not really want to unionize but because there is a real or perceived threat.

Proponents of the secret ballot would have us believe that ideology trumps this evidence, that the secret ballot is the only factor necessary to ensure a democratic outcome. The member for Carleton quipped during his speech that the minister “used rhetoric to attack the secret ballot, which would make any third-world, tin-pot dictators proud.” That is right in Hansard too. It is he who would make tin-pot dictators proud by claiming the only factor necessary to prove that democracy has been served is solely the use of a secret ballot. The third-world tin-pot dictators that the member speaks of, like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, have all continued to remain elected through a system that uses a secret ballot. In fact, there are many countries around the world that conduct secret-ballot elections that many members in the chamber, perhaps all, would agree are not true democracies.

My point is that I do not think we can look at one factor in isolation to judge how effective and democratic a system is, including one that governs union certification. Instead, we must look at all factors in total that influence the process to determine how best to move forward.

Our government believes in a fair and democratic certification program, one that is based on evidence, not ideology or rhetoric, and is agreed upon through a respected tripartite process in the federal jurisdiction. We believe the card check certification is that system.

When our party ran for election, we promised to repeal these laws. We remain strongly committed to supporting the rights of workers. In order for workers and employers, society, and the economy to prosper, we need fair and balanced labour legislation. Bill C-4, as it was originally passed by 204 members in this House, would achieve that goal. I ask members to oppose the Senate amendments and restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

Resuming Debate

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for reminding us of some important history about the changes that were proposed with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. My comments are on a couple of things that my hon. colleague mentioned.

It was really clear from all of the experts we saw and from what we heard from those involved, the unions, employers, and government folks, that the way to change the Canada Labour Code is in a tripartite model so that we keep the balance. Of course, that did not happen the last time. We have heard from the Conservatives and from a few other people that there is a mountain of evidence, which we could not find as it was mostly anecdotal, that somehow people were using a card check system and that somehow people were being prevented from exercising their rights and their votes, none of which we heard from the experts and the academics this time around.

What we heard and reaffirmed—and it is unfortunate that the Senate has sent it back—from all people who are connected to workplaces, the employers, workers, and those who draft legislation, is that when we change the Canada Labour Code, we need to do that in partnership in a tripartite model. What the previous government did skewed that to the employer's interest.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatoon West knows that I have a great deal of respect for the work that she has done and continues to do for workers in this country.

When Bill C-525 came to committee, I had the opportunity to sit in on all of the discussion. The Conservatives allocated only two hours to hear witnesses on a bill that changed the Canada Labour Code. The proponent of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, provided testimony at committee and then he left. He did not listen to the other witnesses. I found that to be a bit strange being it was a private member's bill. I thought it was odd.

When the member for Red Deer—Lacombe was asked if he had checked with any experts, his answer was no. When he was asked if he had spoken with any people from the labour movement, his answer was no. When he was asked if he had spoken with any academics, again his answer was no. The consultation was not deep.

The other thing he mentioned was that the bill was in response to a mountain of grievances. We asked the chairman of the IRB about the mountain of grievances. We were told the total number of grievances against union bosses was two over 10 years. There were 4,000 renderings and only two were against union bosses.

In this particular case, I am sure that the member would have wanted to present in front of committee. In his presentation in front of the committee on this bill, would he have reaffirmed those statistics?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the government's motion to disagree with the amendment by the Senate to Bill C-4. In fact, I am saddened to have to speak to this bill again.

Bill C-4 was passed by this House, with no amendments, and sent to the other place, where it was adopted at second reading and where it also went through the committee process, again with no amendments being tabled or adopted.

However, at third reading, certain members of the other House proposed amendments. Of course, as parliamentarians, it is certainly appropriate to study legislation before either place and to propose amendments that would improve or clarify the bill at hand. In this instance, the amendments proposed served to completely gut the bill. Senator Tannas' amendment would have had Bill C-525, from the previous government, reinstated. Senator Dagenais' amendment would have done the same with the previous government's Bill C-377. The latter was subsequently withdrawn, so I will speak to the remaining amendment.

The card check system for union certification seems to be a preoccupation of the Conservative members in this House and in the other place. One could put it down to ideology, I suppose, or consternation that something their party, their government, put in place while in government is being dismantled. That is understandable.

What is less understandable is the fact that the Conservatives continue to try to resurrect a law that has been judged by non-partisan experts to be unfair and unnecessary. Andrew Sims, vice-chair of the 1996 task force to review the Canada Labour Code, said:

...the two bills that are repealed by Bill C-4....both had the air of one side seeking political intervention for more ideological, economic, or relationship reasons, and they have corroded the view that legislative reform at the federal sector is based on the tripartite model.

At committee we heard testimony from respected experts, both employer and employee stakeholders and academics, that the previous government's Bill C-525 was a law that was enacted on the false premise that it was indeed the very bedrock of democracy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservatives like to compare the union certification process to elections, but testimony and evidence from expert after expert debunked this claim. The analogy, simply put, is a false one.

Here is what Prof. Sara Slinn, associate professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, at York University, had to say about the previous government's Bill C-525:

...there is a faulty political election analogy at work here. Mandatory vote supporters commonly rely on a political election analogy founded on the view that certification votes are analogous to political campaigns and elections. The attraction of this argument is understandable, appealing as it does to ideas of free speech and informed choice and workplace democracy, but it's a false analogy.

The nature of union representation is not analogous to government power or political representation, and as a result, the nature of decision-making in a union vote is not analogous to that in a political election. First, the nature of the decision is different. Certification doesn't transform the employment relationship. It simply introduces the union as the employee's agent for the limited purpose of bargaining and administering any collective agreement that the union may be able to negotiate. The employer's overriding economic authority over employees continues in any event.

Secondly, there is no non-representation outcome possible in the political context. In political elections citizens vote between two or more possible representatives. There is no option to be unrepresented, so...if union representation elections were to be analogous to political elections, then it would be a vote among different collective employer representatives with no option for non-representation. That's simply not the system that we have anywhere in Canada.

It seems appropriate for me to once again refer to the testimony of Prof. Slinn, who also addressed the issue of the card check versus secret ballot votes for union certification.

...in terms of cards being a reliable measure of employee support, it's often contended that votes more accurately indicate employees' desire for union representation than cards, suggesting that card-based certification fosters union misconduct to compel employees to sign cards. Although this is possible, there is no evidence, either in academic studies or in the case law from jurisdictions that use this procedure, that it is a significant or a widespread problem. Anecdote isn't evidence, and certainly it shouldn't be a compelling basis for legislative change in the face of a lot of academic research finding that mandatory vote systems have negative effects on labour relations and that employer interference in certification is indeed a significant and widespread problem.

My Conservative colleagues want to seriously curtail, I believe, the ability of Canadians to join unions.

Whenever there has been adversity suffered by working people or unfair or unsafe working conditions, unions have been there to advocate for fairness and for safer and more humane working conditions. Unions have been at the forefront of raising awareness and fighting for issues that affect everyone, from the dangers of asbestos in the workplace to the plight of the next generation of workers facing a future of temporary and precarious work.

I am proud to recognize the efforts of the labour movement in Canada in educating Canadians about the scourge of asbestos. I know that all Canadians look forward to the day when asbestos is finally banned in Canada.

As we mark the 25th anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, when 26 miners were killed, I am also extremely proud of the tireless efforts of the United Steelworkers, whose advocacy on behalf of Westray families resulted in the Westray law. We just have to make sure that all levels of government enforce this law.

Unions and their members have long been the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, raising the alarm on many important issues, and any attempt by the Conservatives, whether in the House or in the other place, to make it harder for Canadians to join unions begs the question why. Why the attack on the constitutional right of working men and women to organize themselves in joining unions?

Canadians have the right of freedom of association, and the card check system has served Canadian workers and Canadian workplaces well for decades. The previous government's Bill C-525 was just a thinly veiled attempt, based on dubious anecdotal examples, to tip the balance to the side of the employer, and employers already have the upper hand in most instances.

Rather than refute, once again, the many problems with Bill C-525, allow me to ask my Conservative colleagues what their motivation was in bringing in such an obviously anti-union, anti-worker, and therefore, in my opinion, anti-democratic law?

To quote Hassan Yussuff, from the Canadian Labour Congress:

Why would an employer care if the workers want to join the union? If it's their free democratic and constitutional right in this country, why would employers want to interfere in it other than the fact that if you do have a vote, it gives the employer time to use all kinds of tactics during the time the vote has been ordered? I could list some of the companies that clearly said they were going to close the facility, or cut people's salaries, or lay people off. Of course, ultimately it changed the workers' ability to truly exercise their free choice.

There is no reason to make it harder to join a union other than to tilt the playing field unfairly toward employers.

As I mentioned earlier, it gives me no pleasure to stand here today to speak to Bill C-4 again. In September 2016, I stated in the House my hope that Bill C-4 would receive swift passage so that the risks and restrictions brought about by the previous government's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 would cease to exist. However, here we are in May 2017, in a déjà vu situation. Just as the previous government's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were enacted by the Conservatives in a less than straightforward fashion, as part of an omnibus bill through a private member's bill process, as opposed to being introduced and debated as government bills, so too have the Conservatives in the Senate engaged in what I believe are questionable tactics.

Bill C-4 had already been adopted at second reading in the Senate, studied at committee with no resulting amendments, and yet Conservative senators decided to break parliamentary tradition and propose amendments at third reading. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

The Senate has not vetoed a bill from the Commons since 1939. The Senate now very rarely makes amendments of principle. The amendments it does make to bills now are almost always related to drafting—to clarify, simplify and tidy proposed legislation.

The amendments proposed by the hon. senators Tannas and Dagenais were most definitely not to clarify, simplify, and tidy, but rather were designed to torpedo the contents of the entire bill. While the motives of the aforementioned senators are very clear, it remains a mystery as to why and how the government seemed unable to shepherd its own bill through the upper chamber.

Back in September when Bill C-4 was first debated, I congratulated the government on making good on one of its election promises. It would seem that my congratulations were a bit premature. I hope the government will take its responsibilities seriously and work diligently to ensure that it keeps this particular promise to Canadians to restore some balance to the collective bargaining process and to eliminate the onerous and unnecessary financial reporting requirements that the previous government imposed on unions.

I had also enumerated for the government the many ways that we as lawmakers could make life better for Canadians. Last fall, at the one year anniversary of the election, I expressed hope that the new government that had promised equality for women, fairness for indigenous people, and sunny ways for all would work closely with all members in this House, as well as unions and civil society, to bring about better jobs and a more secure future for all Canadians. I am disappointed that seven months later, one of the government's very first pieces of legislation has yet to be passed. How much longer do workers have to wait?

The NDP said that Bill C-4 was a good first step, but we reminded the government that there is still much work to be done. The previous government's omnibus bill, Bill C-4, had decimated the health and safety provisions for public sector workers. We need to restore these important safeguards for the people who deliver our essential public services.

As part of the promised labour policy reform, we asked the government to bring in legislation to update and modernize the Canada Labour Code. As we know, sections of the code that deal with workplace harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements are about 60 years out of date. It is time we modernized the code to reflect the reality of today's labour market. We have yet to hear from the government about this.

Given the rise in precarious and involuntary part-time employment, will the Liberals work with unions to ensure that part-time, temporary and self-employed workers have the right to the same workplace and labour protections as other Canadians? These workers are faced with a host of added challenges that include eligibility for EI benefits, and erratic hours that create challenges in pursuing an education, arranging child care, and qualifying for a mortgage.

When will the government commit to reinstating a fair minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors? Some provinces and municipalities are already acknowledging that a living wage will make a huge difference in making life more affordable. Will the government step up and lead the way?

We heard just the other day in this House how the government will be pursuing a national poverty reduction strategy. A critical element of a poverty reduction strategy, I would say, and I think most people would agree, is a federal minimum wage. As I have said before, another sad fact is the disproportionate number of workers who would be helped by a federal minimum wage are women and young people. We cannot afford not to act.

Through a combination of policy and propaganda, the previous government started to dismantle the system of protections put in place by decades of advocacy by labour organizations and unions. Their right-wing agenda has generated policies that have hurt the environment, social services, and all workers, but especially persons of colour, indigenous communities, women, the poor, and other marginalized groups.

It is way past time for the federal government to bring in stand-alone pay equity legislation. We have studied this issue and consulted, and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Two committee reports have called for action, yet the government is making women wait. It is unconscionable.

All these are contributing factors to greater income inequality. If the government is truly sincere about helping the middle class, then it must immediately address all of these issues. If the government cannot manage to stickhandle its own bill through the legislative process, what hope do we have that these pressing issues will ever get the attention they deserve? Affordable child care, pay equity, decent accessible housing, and a living wage are all measures that would help Canadians from all walks of life.

It is not enough to state that one is a feminist. It is not enough to stand beside union men and women during the election and raise one's fist in solidarity. These are just words and gestures. We must follow that talk, that show of support, with actions, with leadership, with the hard work of making hard decisions.

It is time to stop the rhetoric of gender lenses, gender-based analysis, of consultation, discussion, of a whole-of-government approach. It is time to act. It is time to do the hard work of governing. It is time to stop blaming the previous government for the inaction of the present government.

The government must pass this legislation. The Liberals must bring in the changes they promised the working men and women of this country. I urge the government to finally make good on its promise to repeal the previous government's Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 and to urgently turn its attention to all the pressing issues facing Canadians. My NDP colleagues and I stand ready to help.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is okay, Madam Speaker. I have what people call selective hearing, so I am okay with heckling.

I want to emphasize that the discussion on the secret ballot was better served during the debate over Bill C-4. That bill put the discretion of the secret ballot or a card check process for certification back with the labour board. The board will ensure that the interests of RCMP members are reflected in the choice made. Why is member after member from the Conservative Party insisting on limiting that choice?

In fact, as a government, it is important we promote, encourage and put into place a uniform approach to labour relations. That makes sense. One group should not be different than another group, but the Conservative members consistently demonstrate they do not understand that principle. Why do they not understand the value of having a uniform approach on union certification across the public sector? I anxiously await an answer from any one of my Conservative colleagues.

I started by speaking to the issue of time allocation. I was here during questions and answers with regard to time allocation. I made the suggestion that when I was in opposition, it did not take very much for any group of 12 members of Parliament to in essence tie up legislation for quite a long period of time. If they are creative, it does not take much for 12, let alone 20, 30, or 40 members to do that. In fact, I remember sitting in the opposition benches when I indicated we needed a responsible opposition to assist in passing legislation, and Hansard is wonderful because we can find the quotes. We do not pat ourselves on the back because we can hold up legislation. Any opposition can do that.

What is the purpose of what the Conservatives are attempting to do here? They have made their position very clear. They do not like unions and their mission is to continue to delay indefinitely. They will argue that every member not only should be entitled once but twice, possibly even three or four times, to speak to the legislation because they do not want the legislation to pass. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that the government has put in time allocation, the first thing I would remind them is that Stephen Harper used it over 100 times. Even when the Harper government brought in time allocation, I often said that at times I felt sorry for the government. I recognized that one opposition party would talk about anything and everything, and that could frustrate the system.

When we bring in legislation, I respect the fact that we want to ensure there is an adequate amount of time for debate on issues. I like to consider myself a parliamentarian first and foremost in being able to contribute to debate and ensure there is, at the very least, an appropriate amount of time. On the issue of labour and labour relations and the whole certification, there have been many hours of debate inside this wonderful, beautiful chamber, inside our committee rooms, in the other place, not only in the last 18 months, under this government, but in the last couple of years of the Stephen Harper government. No one is saying anything surprising or shocking on the issue. It is a lot of rehashing of what has been said already.

The Prime Minister has been very clear in recognizing that if a standing committee comes up with ideas that can improve on the legislation and those improvements can be incorporated into the legislation, the government is open to that. That same principle also applies for the the Senate of Canada.

I am pleased to reinforce that once again we have another piece of legislation in which the government has recognized some changes to it. That is a strong and positive thing.

However, let us not kid ourselves. The government House leader tries to fulfill her responsibility in getting the legislation through the House. Without time allocation or the goodwill of opposition members, it is virtually impossible to do that unless members are prepared to see the legislation pass in an appropriate time.

We have a limited amount of time for debate. Mid-June is coming really quickly and there is so much more we want to debate. There are oppositions motions to debate, and I always find them interesting. Even in opposition, there are limitations in passing things. A number of Conservatives, and even some New Democrats, ask about time allocation. That is the essence of why we have it today.

The government has listened to members of the Senate and members of the House on other aspects of the legislation and has allowed changes to Bill C-7, for example, more issues can now be collectively bargained, such as harassment issues. That was expanded upon because the government listened to members of House and Senate.

The bill provides an appropriate labour regime for our RCMP members to stand up for their rights. We wanted to achieve that, not only because of the direction given by the Supreme Court of Canada but because it was important to recognize that other law enforcement agencies were unionized, and things continue on relatively positively.

If we take a look at the men and women in the RCMP, who serve as officers or are in our reserves, and the incredible work they do, not only in Canada but abroad, I cannot understand why someone would oppose affording our law enforcement agency the opportunity to organize. That is a strong positive. We can reinforce that positive message by passing this legislation. I would encourage members, particularly in the Conservative Party, to send that positive message by voting in favour of the legislation.

It is important to recognize that the Senate offered five key amendments, and consequential amendments. Some of the amendments have been accepted by the government and others have not. However, the department has been very thorough in reviewing all the suggestions from the other House.

Some concerns have been raised by the New Democrats with respect to Bill C-7. Our response to the Senate amendments gives labour relations and collective bargaining regimes to allow our RCMP members to stand up for their rights.

We listened to the Senate and the members of this House by expanding the issues I pointed out earlier dealing with bargaining.

The idea that RCMP members can only collectively bargain pay and benefits is just not correct. That is an impression my friends in the New Democratic Party are trying to give out, and we know that it is not correct. They can collectively bargain a host of different issues, such as the terms and conditions for grievances and procedures for classification and workforce adjustments.

They can also bargain on issues such as harassment, something that is very topical. When we sat in opposition, one of my colleagues from Toronto often talked about harassment that was taking place and the desire to see something happen on that issue. I am glad it is being incorporated. I am sure all members are happy to see that.

There are issues the Conservative Party raises. It is no surprise that the Conservative Party is against the collective bargaining rights, per se. As the government, the Conservatives brought in anti-labour bills, which I made reference to, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-4 deals with the issue of mandatory secret ballots. Bill C-7 was initially silent on this issue, because there should be a uniform approach across the public service. That is something the Conservatives need to recognize.

I want to recognize the agreement reached between the RCMP and the Government of Canada on April 6, 2017, which saw a significant increase in pay for our RCMP, which I think will go a long way in demonstrating the respect we have for the fine work they do.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to share a few thoughts and words.

Resuming Debate

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my Conservative colleague's comments.

The background to Bill C-7 that we are debating today is that the Conservative Party is essentially against appropriate collective bargaining rights, and those members showed that when they brought in anti-labour bills such as Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Our government tabled Bill C-4 to put the discretion of certification back with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, where it used to be, to determine whether a secret ballot or a card check is the most appropriate. The board is committed to making sure that members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

That was the system we had until the previous Conservative government made those anti-union changes. When RCMP members were extensively consulted by the previous Conservative government, narrowing down the certification method to exclude a card-check system was not on their list of priorities.

The Conservative member is not reflecting the desire of RCMP members. He is not reflecting the fact that the dual system arbitrated through the Public Service Labour Relations Board has been in place successfully for many years.

Why would the member let this one element convince him to vote against all of the positives, like providing RCMP members with a labour relations opportunity, to be represented by a union, which is what they want and is what the Supreme Court ruled that they deserved to have? Why would he vote against that?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, from the comments my colleague made, it is clear that the bill is very complex in terms of the changes that have been brought forward and hence, adequate debate needs to take place in the House. Of course, the government has chosen to impose time allocation.

The member raised a point which is very important with respect to different points of view between management and stakeholders. I have an example from one of my constituents, who raised the issue on another bill, Bill C-4, which was meant to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. At committee, he highlighted the fact that his employee was invited to the committee to offer a different point of view from his own. A case in point is that management opposed Bill C-4, but the employee of the company did not agree with management. That is a very important distinction. Hence, it is important to ensure that those voices are heard as well.

I wonder if the member would elaborate on that distinction, the importance of it, and how the process the government has embarked on falls short.

Canada Labour Code

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the interventions by my friend and colleague from Carleton, as misdirected as they may be.

I first have to recognize the fact that he made no comment whatsoever about Bill C-377. Therefore, I am thinking the Conservatives now understand the folly in that bill and the error of their ways.

With respect to a secret ballot being the perfect solution, and tin-pot dictators would like the card check, the secret ballot has not really worked out exceptionally well for the people of Russia or Iran, if we want to hold those up as great democracies in the world.

The member did make reference to a document that was presented by his department. That document did show that the field is tilted toward employers. That was the information in that document. However, the most egregious part of that whole scenario is the fact that, as we were debating Bill C-525 in the House, the minister at the time, and it was not the member for Carleton but the member for Simcoe—Grey, had that information. She sat on that information and did not allow it to be entered into the debate. I ask why the minister would sit on that information, not allow for a fulsome debate, and not bring what knowledge and data into the debate that could be brought.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly, I agree. My colleague is referring to the evidence, and that is in fact what we have committed as a government: to use evidence to make good policy that will benefit Canadians, grow our middle class, and create a strong economy. When we move away from using evidence, it results in flawed legislation that often has an ulterior motive. From my perspective, that is what Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 represented.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, with respect to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this important debate and to talk about Bill C-4, and most important, I am here to ask the members of this House to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senate to Bill C-4.

The previous government's bills, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, were intentionally designed to weaken unions and to break down the labour movement in Canada. In particular, Bill C-525 has made it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize and gives a significant advantage to the employer. By rejecting the Senate amendments, we can restore healthy labour relations between government, employers, and unions.

Our government believes that a healthy labour relationship leads to a thriving middle class and a strong economy. In 2015, Canadians were clear in their message that they wanted a government that values fairness, transparency, and collaboration, and they were clear that they wanted a government that puts the well-being of Canadians first.

The commitments we made to Canadians included working hard to restore trust in public institutions, including Parliament, by working with greater openness and transparency, by promoting more open and free votes, and by reforming and strengthening committees.

During the campaign, we also talked about the need to grow the middle class to ensure stable lives and income for Canadians, and we talked about the history and value of organized labour in ensuring those goals.

We committed to restoring a fair and balanced approach to labour relations, and Bill C-4 is an integral piece of doing just that.

We must restore balanced labour relations between employees and employers, and to do that, we need to support Bill C-4.

Our government respects and values unions and their workers, and we know that employers do too. Both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly in safe, healthy work environments.

It is our labour laws that help ensure that there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. Bill C-4, in its original form, is emblematic of our values and guiding principles.

Bill C-4 proposes to repeal amendments enacted by Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were introduced by the previous government.

I would remind the House that, as originally introduced, Bill C-4 sought to restore fairness, balance, and stability to the federal labour relations system. The purpose of Bill C-4 was to repeal amendments made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bills C-525 and C-377 have serious ramifications for workers and unions in Canada.

Bill C-4 proposes to return to the card check certification system that was in place before the introduction of Bill C-525 and also proposes removing the public financial reporting requirements for unions introduced in Bill C-377.

Bill C-4 was already debated, and I am pleased that it was adopted in the House of Commons in its original version. At third reading here in this House, 204 members voted in favour of Bill C-4, and that means that 72% of all the members who voted in this House were in favour of the bill.

It then went to the Senate, where honourable Senators debated it, discussed it, and amended it. In the Senate, the bill was adopted with amendments, which would affect the sections of Bill C-4 related to union certification and would ultimately lead to Bill C-525 remaining in effect, which, as I mentioned, would have detrimental effects on unions and their members.

Both of the bills addressed by Bill C-4 hinder positive employee and employer relationships, but Bill C-525 in particular has made it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize. This is because Bill C-525 changed the union certification and decertification systems under three federal labour statutes.

The pieces of legislation addressed in Bill C-4 both impede positive employer-employee relations. Bill C-525 in particular has complicated things for Canadians who want to unionize.

The bill essentially made it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents and made it easier for bargaining agents to be decertified.

Prior to the amendments enacted through Bill C-525, federally regulated unions could use what was called a card check system for certification. If a union demonstrated that 50% plus 1% of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for those workers. A vote was only required if less than a majority, but enough to indicate a strong interest, signed: less than 35%, under the Canada Labour Code, for example. Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote and to require a vote even when more than 50% of workers signed union membership cards. It also made it easier for unions to be decertified by lowering the threshold to trigger a decertification vote to 40%, compared to majority support, which was previously required.

Unfortunately, we have seen examples of employers who will resort to any measure to deter their employees from unionizing. In effect, what Bill C-525 does is allow employers to know exactly when a union might be trying to organize in the workplace. The point is that as a result of Bill C-525, employers now have a powerful tool they did not have before to slow down or stop the union certification process. More generally, they have the ability to unfairly influence the collective bargaining process.

The card check system, whereby a union is certified by demonstrating majority support through signed union cards has been used successfully for many years in the federal jurisdiction and in several provinces. A number of unions, like Unifor and the Air Line Pilots Association, argue that it is fast, efficient, and much more likely to be free of employer interference than the mandatory secret ballot system brought in under Bill C-525.

Other interested parties, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, opposed the introduction of a mandatory vote system as set out in Bill C-525.

Bill C-525 made significant changes to a system that already worked. There was a democratic and fair system in place for employees to express their support for a union. As I mentioned, a card check system relies on majority support, a key democratic principle.

Bill C-525 is not problematic for just unions. It imposes some serious burdens on others as well. For example, there are real implications for the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. These boards are responsible for the full cost and logistical responsibilities involved in holding representation votes. Under these changes, the CIRB would be required to hold a vote to certify a union not just in the roughly 20% of cases where less than a majority of workers have signed union cards but in all cases, which would mean a fivefold increase in the board's workload.

Next is bill C-377. While I should note that the Senate's amendments do not affect the repeal of Bill C-377, I want to remind members of this bill so we can remember why repealing both of these bills is important.

Bill C-377 tips the scales in favour of the employer during the collective bargaining process. It requires labour organizations and labour trusts to file detailed financial and other information with the Canada Revenue Agency. This information is then made publicly available on the CRA's website. For example, during the collective bargaining process, employers will be able to know how much money the union has in its strike fund, giving the employer a substantial advantage.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were expressly designed to disempower and weaken unions, giving significant advantage to employers. That is why our government introduced Bill C-4. It was to restore fair and balanced labour relations in our country.

Unions play a critical role in protecting the rights of Canadians and in ensuring a strong middle class. The right to organize must be protected in Canada. This government respects unions and workers and knows the critical role they play in ensuring a strong economy and a healthy society. Labour laws should ensure that there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. How is it that Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were passed if they do not support such a balance?

These bills were introduced and passed by the previous government because it ignored the long-standing tradition of tripartite consultation in this country. The tripartite consultation process ensures that employers, unions, and governments work together on issues of labour relations law reform and has long contributed to a stable labour relationship across the country. These relationships were not respected by the previous government. The introduction of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 demonstrated the disdain of the previous government for the strong value of the collective voice and effort the tripartite approach represents.

Our government believes that for policies to be fair and balanced, they must be developed through sincere consultation and engagement with all of our partners. A fair and workable labour management balance can only be reached when all parties—the government, unions, and employers—are part of the process. Our government is strongly committed to this approach.

Successful collective bargaining and fairness in the employer-employee relationship are the foundation of our economy. They provide stability and predictability in the labour force, two vital elements of a strong economy.

When labour law reform is required in the future, our government is firmly committed to ensuring that we ground policy development in evidence and collaboration through the tripartite relationship. This approach is critical to ensure that fair, balanced, evidence-based labour polices are developed through real consultation. They are essential for the prosperity of workers and employers, Canadian society, and the economy as a whole. They protect the rights of Canadian workers, and they help the middle class grow and prosper.

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

Let us be clear. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 have diminished and weakened Canada's labour movement, and the way the bills were passed did not allow employers or unions to play their usual role in informing government's decisions.

Even though there were some differences of opinion about the merits of the changes imposed by Bill C-525, representatives on both sides of the bargaining table were highly critical of how the previous government brought in these changes.

It was not only our government that was concerned about Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Many stakeholders also expressed their concerns. There are ample concerns about the content of these bills and the damage they do to the labour movement and the fair and balanced relationship between employers and their employees.

As I have reminded all members, it is just as important to address how these changes came to pass. Employers and unions were not given the chance to help inform the previous government's decisions. It is no surprise that when policies are developed without proper consultation, as was the case with both of these bills, they often end up causing more harm than good.

Labour reforms are important. They have wide-ranging implications for workers, for unions, for employers, and for our country, which is why we must give the process of labour law reform the time and respect it deserves, and our government will continue to do so.

Successful collective bargaining and fairness in the employer-employee relationship are the foundation of our economy. They provide stability and predictability in the labour force, two vital elements of a strong economy. They are the basis for good wages and safe working environments, what should be basic rights for all Canadians, and they are the basis for good labour policy that affects millions of working Canadians.

The rights of labour unions and the workers they represent are also the rights of Canadians. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to protect those rights. We need to make sure that labour policy works in the best interests of Canadians. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 cause real harm and do not represent a positive contribution to labour relations in Canada.

We need to continue working to ensure that we uphold the tripartite consultation process between employers, unions, and governments. By working together on issues of labour relations law reform, we will continue to have strong and stable relations across the country. By opposing the Senate amendments, we can restore fair and balanced labour relations in our country, which contribute to a thriving middle class and a strong economy.

We believe that, to ensure fairness and balance, the House must oppose the proposed amendments.

I ask all members to oppose the amendments introduced to Bill C-4 in the Senate and to give labour relations the respect it deserves.

Opposition Motion—Preferential access to government

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one theme that ran through the member's comments was that he was looking for substance. On the matter of labour, we had substance to offer the hon. member when this government took steps to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and when the Prime Minister became the first sitting prime minister to meet with the Canadian Labour Congress. With respect to gender, we were all very proud to see the Prime Minister appoint the first fifty-fifty gender parity cabinet in the history of this country. When it comes to youth, we have invested in our youth so they are prepared to fight for jobs. With respect to access, last year, there were over 250,000 exchanges with Canadians and 5,200 submissions were received. This year over 140,000 submissions have been received thus far.

If fundraising were the only way in which the Minister of Finance was accessible, the hon. member for Outremont may have a point, but it is not the only way. He is accessible to all Canadians, especially those who do not contribute a single penny.

[Jerry Dias]

Thank you very much.

If you listen to our members, if you're listening to Canadians, the reason we've had such poor voter turnouts over the last several elections, which is starting to finally turn around, is that people believe their vote doesn't count, doesn't mean anything. What I love is that when you take a look at the last two federal elections, we have had majority governments with 39.5% and 39.6%. More than 60% of Canadians didn't vote for either governing party.

So I'm fascinated when I listen to remarks about democracy and referendums. We know that in the last 10 years there was not a referendum. There was Bill C-4, Bill C-51, Bill C-377, Bill C-525, but not one referendum. I would argue, for those who are screaming for a referendum today, that we need to take a look at their history.

Now, I will argue that on October 19 there was a referendum, and it was a referendum of change. One issue was clearly the elimination of the first-past-the-post electoral system. On behalf of Unifor's 310,000 members, I am here to emphasize the importance of implementing electoral reform in time for the next election. I want to get straight to the point of the discussion, because it seems to us at Unifor that this process is quickly coming to a moment of truth.

According to remarks from the Prime Minister and also from Minister Monsef, broad-based support for change is a prerequisite for changing the system. The Chief Electoral Officer has said we need the broadest possible consensus. So let me be very direct with all of you: there is a broad base of support for electoral reform. You have the most recent Ekos survey from only a week ago: 60% want the government to fulfill its election pledge that we have had the last first-past-the-post election.

It's true that support for specific options is less decisive, but still, there is a clear broad base of support: support for PR, 46%; support for the current system, 29%; support for preferential ballots, 26%. In other words, there is one clear alternative to the present system: proportional representation.

Our members and most Canadians believe they have voted for change. They have voted for the principle of change, expecting that you will implement that decision with specific reforms that are understandable and explainable to our members in our communities.

This committee has the capacity, the mandate, and the information on voting systems needed to bring forward a majority position on electoral reform, and when you do so, the vast majority of Canadians will support you. In August our national convention affirmed that electoral reform must be addressed. Our members unanimously endorsed the proportional representation system for Canada. We did not get into the weeds of the particular kind of PR system; we say that is your job. We support the principle of proportionality to make sure that every vote counts and to make false majorities impossible. We want fewer reasons to vote strategically and more opportunity to vote for a hopeful, progressive future.

There's no question that our organization and one of my previous organizations, the CAW, talked a lot about strategic voting, but what was strategic voting really all about? We voted strategically because we didn't want a particular party. It thus wasn't about voting for the party you wanted; it was making sure that one party didn't get elected or have a majority with less than 40%.

We want fewer reasons to vote strategically. We want more reasons for young people and all those who have been alienated from politics to engage and participate in the democratic process. In our view, when Canadians think about electoral reform, they want the system to change so that all votes directly impact the composition of Parliament, instead of the situation in 2015, in which an estimated nine million votes are without real reflection in Parliament.

I want to comment also on the idea that has been floated that smaller reforms could be implemented with a smaller consensus. I don't think this makes a lot of sense.

First, support for the present system is pretty much limited to the core base of the previous government. Support for preferential ballots, which we assume is what is meant by “smaller reforms”, is even less. There is not more support for smaller reform. Frankly, there is not a single person in Unifor who has spoken out in favour of ranked ballots as the preferred option for reform, so I urge you not to go down that road. The way to get this done is for the majority of you to agree on the principles that represent Canadian opinions and values and then propose an electoral system that best implements those principles.

In our opinion, the core issue is that Canadians want a different system that eliminates false majorities. We have too much experience that these false majorities produce extremist, ideological governments that do more harm than good—I can argue the last 10 years any time. Canadians want less partisanship in politics and more co-operation that produces good public policy. It means that we all have to look forward to a different kind of government, with the knowledge that it is far less likely that any one party will dominate in the way we have become accustomed to, but we still have stable government. In our opinion, we'll have more stable government, and the incoming government will not spend the first year repealing the extremist agenda of the previous government. We will still have parties with distinct alternative policies. We will need more political leadership, not less, and it is that political leadership we need and expect now.

If the majority for electoral reform fails to take this opportunity, it will be a long time before these conditions come around again. Unifor members are ready for change now, and we are expecting you to lead that change to ensure that a new proportional voting system is in place for the next federal election.

Thank you very much.

Canada Labour Code

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we already had the polling information that I put out there that tells us there is already a broad consensus among the Canadian public about how they would like to see this particular piece of legislation.

Bill C-525 is no different from the laws that already exist in other jurisdictions outside of Canada and in our provinces within Canada. This is not some airy-fairy massive change. This is simply giving the Canada Labour Code, or whatever looks after the private sector, that ability. The legislation before Bill C-525 had “may” actually go to the union members and have a secret ballot vote. Changing the word “may” to “shall” is really all that Bill C-525 did. It took something that was optional and made it mandatory, at no extra cost, by the way. The bill did not need a royal recommendation or anything like that, because the labour council could simply absorb that. It is part of its mandate already. It is part of what it does.

No, I am not buying the member's argument. Is he saying that private members should not have the right to bring forward legislation to change labour laws or things like the wording of the national anthem?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I brought forward my bill, Bill C-525, in response to questions about financial transparency. I looked after the accountability part of it, which dealt with the mandatory secret ballot vote. The member should understand that the people that had come to talk to me in my own constituency had differences of opinions with their union leadership.

I have been a member of a union as well, several different times. I am not arguing against whether or not unions should or should not exist. The reality is, though, that certain members get offside with their union leadership. That union then has the entire wherewithal of all of the money from union dues to use in court litigation and action against members who disagree with the leadership of the union. When they ask for that information and try to get specific information about their case, about how much money is being spent on litigation against one poor union member, a union member, by the way, who is supposed to be looked after by the union leadership and not sued and litigated by the union membership, they cannot get that information.

Is the hon. member standing in his place here and accusing my constituents of lying?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that this is likely the last time I am going to get to rise in the House and debate this piece of legislation, unless we have some type of miracle in the Senate that protects the rights of workers.

I want to thank my colleague for his speech, but I find the comments that he made to be paramount in their hypocrisy when it comes to what he is actually saying. It does not make any sense to me. He said as the former labour minister for Ontario that Ontario had it right. Guess what workers in Ontario get to do when they are asked if they want to be part of a union or not? They get the right to a secret ballot.

The member talked about the rights of workers. These are workers' rights and human rights, so what about the right to vote? What about the right to know where a person's legislatively mandated union dues go? Those union dues are tax deductible at the expense of about half a billion dollars for the taxpayers of Canada. What about the rights of all those people to know how that money is actually spent?

We know. We do not have to rely on the misinformation campaign by the member opposite. We can simply look at the polling information that has been done time and time again, which has resulted in the very same regressive laws that the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, is going back to. These laws have been changed in virtually every other democracy in the world that we would consider to be our peers, and in the provinces of our very own country. The United States, for example, has mandatory secret ballot voting for workers to decide whether or not they want to be in a union. Various countries in Europe have the same thing. Various provinces in Canada have the exact same thing.

I do not know any members of Parliament who have stood in the House and said that a constituent asked them when once elected by a secret ballot to trundle off to Ottawa, rise in their places and make some speech about things that are flowery but do not make any sense whatsoever. I do not know of any members whose constituents have asked for their ability to see where their tax dollars or union dues are spent to be taken away. I do not know of any members who have said that their constituents have asked them to take away their ability to have a secret ballot vote because they do not want to make that decision on their own behalf. It is tomfoolery. That is absolutely ludicrous.

The Liberals talk a great game about union bosses and they talk a great game about employers, but they never talk about what an actual worker wants. Unionized workers are the people who actually pay the dues. They are not the people who live off the dues. They are not the people necessarily who subsidize the union dues. Unionized workers are the people who go to work and show up with their lunch pails in their hands every day. They are the people who pay these union dues.

Leger as recently as 2013 asked for people's opinion on the secret ballot when a union is formed or removed from a workplace. Across the country, 69% of Canadians completely agreed and 17% somewhat agreed. We are talking numbers north of 75% to 80% in the various regions of this country of unionized workers who absolutely want the right to have a mandatory secret ballot vote to verify whether or not they want to be members of a union. What is so wrong with supporting that notion? It is absolutely mind-boggling to me. This would be tantamount to members of Parliament knocking on doors in their constituencies during a byelection or a general election campaign with ballots in hand. They bring along two of the biggest people they know who stand right behind them and they tell the person who answers the door that it might be in his or her best interests to vote for them right there, right now. That is called card checking and that is sometimes how it is played out. I have heard that from my constituents.

The Liberals and the NDP like to claim that it was the previous Conservative government's notion to put this bill forward. I did it. I put Bill C-525 forward and I did it because I heard from workers in my riding that they were not getting the accountability that they wanted.

I do not think as a member of Parliament that I should be reaching into the internal operations of a union, but I do believe as a member of Parliament that I have a responsibility to give every accountability measure I can to workers so they can understand where their money is being spent, so they have the ability to see where it is being spent, and so they have the ability to hold that union to account if it is not doing a good job spending their union dues.

Absolutely, this is the right way to solve this problem. Give people the tools to look after themselves, and they will do it. I could go on about this poll.

Opinions on the disclosure of financial information is the other aspect of the bill. It is clear that the Liberals are simply promising things to their friends. Nobody in their right mind would actually take away financial transparency provisions in any piece of legislation. We move forward on transparency when it comes to letting taxpayers know where their dollars are being spent and letting people know what investments are being made on their behalf, but no, that is not what is happening here through Bill C-4, by the Liberal government, with the support of the New Democrats, the Green Party, and the Bloc Québécois. Only Conservatives actually want to let people know where their money is being spent.

It does not just stop at unions. They are doing the same thing by not enforcing the first nations financial transparency accountability legislation. The Liberals have aligned themselves with the elite at the top, the union bosses, the reserve chiefs, the band chiefs and council members. They are not actually looking after the so-called middle-class, everyday, ordinary person either living on reserve or carrying their lunch pail every day to their job.

This is a matter of saying one thing, and doing absolutely the opposite. Members do not have to trust me, but if they do not take my word for it, let us take a look at the opinion on disclosure of financial information. Respondents were asked for their opinion on the disclosure of financial information without giving them a preamble, and the majority of employed Canadians completely or somewhat agreed that it should be mandatory for unions to publicly disclose detailed financial information on a regular basis.

How many completely agreed? Not one region of this country actually had anything less than 60% who completely agreed, and nothing less than 16% for somewhat agreed for totals of north of 80%, again, on almost all of these indicators, 80%, when asked in a poll.

These are numbers that most people could only dream of getting in an election. I know, because I got it once. Having this kind of a mandate to be able to go forward and do something is wonderful. This is what Canadians want. This is what they expect. This is what they deserve. This is, however, what is being taken away from them.

If we take a look at the opinion on union due uses, most union workers might not actually know where their union dues are being spent. More than eight out of 10 employed Canadians completely or somewhat disagreed with using union dues to fund attack ads against a political party or making contributions to political parties, or making contributions to advocacy groups unrelated to their workplace needs.

The fact that that question needs to be asked at all in a poll is indicative of the problem, a problem that can be resolved by, one, shedding light on where the money is being spent, and two, giving people the right to vote on what their best interest is based on the performance of the union that is representing them or wanting to represent them.

I simply cannot fathom why anybody would want to take away somebody's right to a secret ballot vote, and take away somebody's right to see where their money is being spent on their behalf.

I have to appeal to the better angels in this place, the ones who know and understand what fairness is all about, the ones who stand up and speak for transparency, who speak in favour of accountability. These people need to stick to their convictions and vote against this regressive piece of legislation, taking us back to a time where nobody knows where the money is being spent, and taxpayers cannot be assured where their taxpayer-funded union due deductions are being spent, and where workers actually have the ability, each and every time, to decide if they want to be in the union, to recertify to be in the union, or to decertify.

The process under Bill C-525 made decertification and certification exactly the same, and yet the Liberals and the NDP and the other parties in this House say that it is now unbalanced, when it is exactly the same. It is in balance. We do not drive around with 15 pounds of pressure in the front left tire and 60 pounds of pressure in the front right tire. That is not how it works.

In conclusion, I can only say how proud I was as a member of Parliament to have a mandate from a secret ballot vote to come to this place to present a private member's bill that changed the legislation for the betterment of workers in this country, and I will stand by them all the way, regardless of what the government tries to do.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am privileged to reinforce the efforts of this government to ensure that Canada's labour laws best serve both employers and employees and fulfill their roles in growing Canada's economy. A fine balance is required in labour relations in the tripartite relationship between unions, employers, and government in establishing fair labour laws.

I will first address the important function played by unions in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and in helping the middle class grow and prosper.

Historically in Canada, unions have played a vital role, both in determining the way people are paid and in preserving people's rights in the workplace. A few of the many benefits that have been secured include the right to fair, safe working conditions; compensation for injury; and equitable labour relations. These three notable fruits of the work of Canadian unions benefit all Canadian employees.

The right to be treated fairly and without discrimination, according to the Canadian Labour Congress, is the most valued right that unions have pursued for workers. Minimum wages, employment insurance, and maternity leave are also workplace benefits that were pioneered by unions and that many of us share. Unions are and have been instrumental in developing the evolution of positive employment practices in Canada.

This government is working to ensure that labour law is balanced, equitable, and fair. Accordingly, Bill C-4 has been set forth by the government to restore fairness and balance to Canada's labour system. It is essential to this restoration of the balance of rights that Bills C-377 and C-525, both of which were supported by our predecessors, be repealed now. Bill C-4 would fulfill that function. It would rescind the provisions of two bills: one bill that causes undue interference and upsets balance and stability in labour relations, Bill C-525; and one that attempts to amend the Income Tax Act for no foreseeable benefit, and that turns out to be counterproductive to a positive working relationship between employers and employees.

Bill C-4 would restore a long-time system that worked well for decades. According to Bob Blakely of Canada's Building Trades Unions, it would restore fairness and respect for the confidentiality of union financial information by allowing unions to be treated like every other tax entity in Canada. The Government of Canada prizes the role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and, in so doing, helping the middle class grow and prosper. Unions are a positive force in our economy. This government has also not forgotten that labour rights are human rights. Bill C-4 would restore and maintain those rights.

The repeal of these two bills is essential. The adoption of Bill C-4 would result in positive and productive outcomes, but in order to show these benefits clearly, it is necessary to outline the conditions of the bills and their counterproductive unfair defaults.

In Bill C-377, the intent was to require unions to show financial statements for expenses over $5,000 and salaries of more than $100,000. Unions were also supposed to provide statements related to expenditures on political and lobbying activities. All of the information was to be posted on a Canada Revenue Agency website. Keep in mind that legislation exists already to ensure that unions make financial information available to their members. Such legislation is evident in section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, with similar provisions in many provincial labour laws. In fact, some provinces feel encroached upon by this overriding of their responsibility. Redundancy is counterproductive. Labour unions are already transparent.

An amendment to the Income Tax Act forms the basis of Bill C-377. This amendment requires a plethora of yearly financial statements in prescribed formats and with prescribed information. So detailed are the requirements that at least 24 different highly specific statements must be included. This is an onerous annual task that, as set out in this bill, is a significant cost in dollars and time for unions, as well as for the Canada Revenue Agency. It has been suggested that tens of millions of dollars will be expended by the government to set up this system and by unions to be in compliance with this redundant process. The compliance and preparation costs remove funding from unions that is supposed to be used by them in their work with members, and the set-up and administration of the system removes funds from government for spending elsewhere.

These are all needless uses of union member dues and taxpayer dollars. Onerous, unnecessary tasks like this in Bill C-377 simply set up excessive and expensive red tape.

Intrusion and lack of privacy are results of both bills, Bill C-525 and C-377. Bill C-4 would omit such problems by reverting to former processes.

Bill C-377 requires labour organizations and associated organizations to report the details of every cumulative transaction over $5,000 and, as a result, invade the privacy of millions of union members, in addition to the privacy of any businesses that provide service to labour organization.

Not only are millions of workers subject to these statements, but also section 4 of Bill C-377 states that the information “shall be made available to the public by the Minister, including publication on the departmental Internet site in a searchable format.” Thus, all Canadians can have access to this highly specific and often quite personal material. Consider how this material could even interfere with effective collective bargaining when management is availed of the information in these statements. In fact, the Canadian Bar Association has suggested that privacy concerns may make Bill C-377 subject to legal challenges.

Bill C-525 attempts to supersede the simple, efficient, and time-honoured card check certification model for union certification by adding a separate mandatory vote system. Intrusion into union formation stands as the basis of Bill C-525.

The adoption of Bill C-4 would return a workable labour-management relationship, with the union conducting its own affairs in its own way. It would remove precedent-setting interference in labour organizations by management. Indeed, the provisions in Bill C-525 make it harder for unions to be certified, yet easier to be decertified. This disturbs the balance and stability in labour relations.

It is important for workers to make free and informed decisions without intrusion, as was provided through the previous federal labour relations system, a system that was respected by both labour and employees. Such intrusion in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 should be obviated by our adoption of Bill C-4.

Discrimination against our unions is widely evident, including in Bill C-377. Other organizations, such as professional associations, receive favourable treatment under tax laws and are not subject to the intrusive, invasive, and expensive reporting mandated by Bill C-377. These other associations, sometimes federations, are freely formed in their own way, with no interference from management. Unlike the interference suggested in Bill C-525, the focus on unions in both bills is suspiciously inequitable.

Bill C-4 would restore impartiality and fair and equal treatment after the union movement in Canada was dealt a harsh, unreasonable set of blows by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In fact, they could just be the initial victims in these two possibly precedent-setting bills.

The Government of Canada values the role of unions in strengthening our economy and protecting the rights of Canadian workers. In this capacity, they help and encourage the middle class to flourish.

The government respects the right of unions to be treated fairly and without discrimination. To restore a balanced, equitable approach to labour relations, it is essential to support Bill C-4. Canada's labour laws must be fair. At least 18,000 labour organizations, along with millions of union members and, indeed, all employees in Canada will be thankful for the restoration of workers' rights if assent is given to BillC-4.

CANADA LABOUR CODE

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise again and speak wholeheartedly against this new Liberal government's Bill C-4, a bill that by its number tells us exactly what the priorities of the current Liberal government are. The ink was not even dry on the minister's signing papers before this piece of legislation was before Parliament. There was clearly no opportunity, as the Liberals across the way say, to consult with industry, with unions, with governments, or with frankly anybody. This was simply an opportunity to pay back those who were loyal to the Liberal Party during the last election. I will get to that during the course of my notes as I go through.

I want to talk a bit about the process. Much has been said here. Members will notice that the arguments coming from the New Democrats and the Liberals have nothing to do with the actual veracity or contents of Bills C-377 or C-525. There is nothing from the other side about the principles that underlie those legislative changes. Everything is masked as being that it was the approach.

I have been here for a long time, and I have no qualms about letting every member of Parliament in the House table the piece of legislation that he or she deems fit. It is what we are elected to do. We are legislators, first and foremost, and if our ability to bring forward legislation for debate, legislation for amendments, new legislation, or repealing legislation is ever hindered, then we have lost our way as members of Parliament.

I am very saddened to hear members, particularly from the governing party, talk so negatively toward the private members' legislation process. That process is exactly the same as a piece of government legislation through all the steps, save but the amount of time allocated for debate in the House. Everything else is exactly the same. It has to pass at least three votes here in the House of Commons: once at second reading, once at report stage from committee, and once at third reading. It has to go through the full scrutiny at a committee meeting, including clause by clause, line by line on any amendments or changes made to that legislation. As well, it has to go through the exact same process in the Senate, the place down the hall, the other place. To say that Bills C-525 and C-377 are illegitimate actually is an insult to this institution.

Now I would like to talk a bit about public support. My friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was very eloquent today. Folks watching back home would be surprised to know this, and this is where the misinformation campaign comes from. I have all kinds of people trolling me on Twitter and on Facebook, making all kinds of accusations about what the bill that I put forward in the last Parliament actually did. When I educate them on what the bill does, they find that they have been misled by their union leaders or others who were giving them a misinformation campaign, paid for probably by their own union dues, about what was actually at stake.

We have heard long testimony here and before committee about what the bill was about. It was about democracy. It was about the right to vote. When we asked people through NRG Research Group on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 71% of respondents actually agreed. If we look at the Leger poll from 2013, we see that 77% of people polled in a unionized workplace completely agreed with the notion of a mandatory secret ballot. This is not something new. We have been voting in this country since Confederation. This is not a new concept. As a matter of fact, the old legislation before Bill C-525 was passed allowed for the labour relations board, whoever it happened to be, to optionally pursue a vote if the members wanted to. What is wrong with having a mandatory vote? Let us find out what the true sense of the bargaining unit actually is. No one has been able to explain this to me, and I have asked the question.

The argument on the other side is that when people are given a choice to vote, there will be fewer unions. Does that not mean that the process we are currently using does not reflect the actual will of the members of the bargaining unit? Nothing else could possibly explain that departure. How does that happen? Does it happen through intimidation by those conducting the union drive? Does it happen through intimidation by the employer? Would it not be nice, in privacy and confidentiality, to determine one's own fate at one's own workplace on one's own? That is what Bill C-525 does.

Let me go back to other polling information. I can go back to 2012. Leger marketing said that 83% of Albertans agreed that a secret ballot vote was necessary when certifying or decertifying a union. In 2009, Leger found that 71% of Quebeckers supported the provincial government amending its laws to make secret ballot voting mandatory when forming a union. That was in Quebec. Is that not where the Prime Minister is from? In 2008, Sigma Analytics found that 75% of those polled in Saskatchewan supported secret ballot voting. I could go on and on.

Every member of Parliament in the House who votes in favour of Bill C-4 is on the wrong side of the issue. The issue is not whether unions are good or bad. The issue is whether one wants accountability in our country and here in this place. It is the secret ballot vote that keeps me and every other member of Parliament in the House honest and accountable. It is through the debate and discourse we have here in front of all Canadians, with their tax dollars being spent in full and open transparency, that allows them to determine their fate and who should be governing on their behalf.

This is absolutely no different. People should, in this day and age, have the right to determine for themselves, through a secret ballot, whether they want to be members of a bargaining unit. What my bill did was actually create a level playing field. The same bar, 40% of people signing cards, creates a mandatory election. It is a simple majority of votes cast in that particular case.

That means that to create a union in Canada right now, with 100 people in a bargaining unit, only 40 need to sign cards. Hypothetically, of those same 40 who come out for a secret ballot vote, only 21 are required. That means that 21 people, under the current legislation, could actually create a union. This is too onerous? This is too onerous a process for the members of the NDP and the Liberal Party to have a little democracy and let people have a say? That is hogwash. I do not believe that for one second.

I want to go back to what I talked about earlier. It is all about accountability. We see it time and time again here in the House. If we look at where this legislation is coming from, it was not six days after the last general election was over that the Prime Minister sat down in a private closed-door meeting with the biggest union bosses in this country, the Canadian Labour Congress. Lo and behold, just after the ink was dry on the swearing in of the cabinet minister, there was a bill before the House of Commons that would do exactly what the union leaders wanted, union leaders who, by the way, when they testified at committee stage on Bill C-525, actually all said that they would support the notion of a secret ballot vote.

There is a disconnect all right. I will agree with the parliamentary secretary. He is very much disconnected from the reality on the ground.

If people were actually paying attention to what the government is proposing through Bill C-4, they would see what rights would be taken away and what transparency they were not going to have any more on the dues they are paying. As union-dues-paying members, they would be very frustrated.

They have been sold a bill of goods that simply does not add up. Whether it is first nations' financial transparency, which we know is not being enforced by the current administration, whether it Treasury Board rules pertaining to office moves, which is a decision at the discretion of the minister or the Prime Minister, or whether we see it here, Liberal friends are going to do very well over the next three years.

However, ordinary hard-working Canadian taxpayers cannot depend on a Liberal government for transparency and accountability. They are going to have to rely on Conservative MPs for that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that certain union bosses and elites stood up and vocally opposed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. However, there have been many public opinion polls that show the vast majority of Canadians, including workers, support both of these measures.

I do not really understand what the hon. member is talking about with respect to harmony in the workplace. I agree with him that harmony in the workplace is to be encouraged. However, I do not know how attacking openness, transparency and a worker's right to a secret ballot enhances harmony in the workplace.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-4, which seeks to repeal both Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

By way of a brief background, Bill C-525 imposes a requirement for a secret ballot for union certification and decertification, whereas Bill C-377 imposes minimal public financial disclosure requirements on unions.

I stand in opposition to Bill C-4, because fundamentally I believe the bill is regressive legislation. It would be bad for workers, for union members, for taxpayers, for openness, for transparency, and for democracy. Indeed, the only group of persons who would benefit from Bill C-4 are a select group of union bosses.

There has been a lot of heated rhetoric from some union leaders, the Liberals, and the NDP over the years about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Therefore, I would submit that it is good to take a step back in this debate on Bill C-4 and look at exactly what Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 actually do.

Bill C-525 simply requires a secret ballot for union certification or decertification, nothing more and nothing less. It replaces the old card check system; a system that was rife for abuse and intimidation. Under the former card check system, union certification could take place no matter that a worker may have been intimidated by a co-worker or union leader to sign up for a union card. Under card check, certification could take place even if, for example, the majority of workers were unaware of certification efforts until certification was a fait accompli.

Bill C-525 simply ensures that on the question of deciding whether to be represented by a union, that the process is an open and democratic one made by secret ballot with the majority of support of workers. What could be wrong with that? After all, the secret ballot is fundamental to our democratic system of governance in Canada and around the world.

Unions use secret ballots to decide all manner of things. Unions use secret ballots in internal union elections. Collective agreements are ratified by secret ballots. Strike action is decided by secret ballot. Yet, on something as fundamental as to whether to be represented by a union, with the consequence, by the way, for a worker, in the case of certification, which one either pays mandatory union dues or one is fired, there was no choice, no secret ballot, and that was what Bill C-525 corrected.

In the context of Canada, Bill C-525 was hardly radical legislation. Indeed, some six provinces have passed similar legislation requiring a secret ballot for certification or decertification of a union. Many of those provinces have had laws on the books for some time. I think Nova Scotia, for example, has had a requirement for a secret ballot since 1977. Therefore, in that context, Bill C-525 is simply extending rights to federally regulated workers that are enjoyed by workers in a majority of provinces across Canada.

What about Bill C-377? What does it do?

All Bill C-377 does is require unions to report expenditures of $5,000 or more, or salaries of $100,000 or more.

Each year in Canada, unions collect about $4.5 billion in union dues. That is $4.5 billion with a “b”. Those union dues are tax deductible and consequently unions receive a tax benefit. The tax benefit that unions receive equals about $400 million a year. Of the billions of dollars that unions collect, unions funnel those billions of dollars collectively into various different causes and efforts.

Having regard for that fact, it seems to me to be more than reasonable to impose some basic minimal financial disclosure requirements on unions so that union members, who after all are mandated to pay union dues, and the broader public, who after all subsidize unions to the tune of $400 million, know where those dollars are spent and how they are allocated.

It is certainly nothing revolutionary when we talk about financial disclosure. As it has been pointed out in this debate today, charities, publicly traded companies, crown corporations, all levels of government have public disclosure and public reporting requirements. Why should unions be treated any differently? All Bill C-377 does is put unions on a level playing field.

For a government that talked so much about openness and transparency during the election and after, it really is ironic that it would choose to introduce Bill C-4 as one of its first pieces of legislation, a bill that takes away the right of a secret ballot from workers to decide whether to certify or decertify, a bill that takes away the right of workers to decide, without intimidation and without coercion, whether they want to be represented by a union, and a bill that takes away basic transparency measures on the billions of dollars in union dues that unions collect that are taxpayer subsidized and mandated from their members.

In short, Bill C-4 is antithetical to basic principles of openness, transparency, and democracy, and therefore needs to be defeated out of hand.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to take it personally that you cut the time just as I took the floor. I know that these things are done by time, and I will respect that, especially given the fact that you control the microphone.

Here we are today discussing Bill C-4. The first thing I want to do is compliment the government on responding to an important promise it made. I see my good friend ready to fall over, but I hope he hangs on, because I am not done. I would ask him to hold on and stay nearby.

I want to straight up compliment the government on bringing in Bill C-4 and unravelling much of the damage that was done by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. This was one of the priorities of the labour movement going into the election. Our party would have done the same, but it stands alone as a compliment to the government for doing this. It is the right thing to do. The Liberals are keeping their promise, and I will give credit where credit is due.

However, it does not end today in terms of standing up for labour. The government will get a great opportunity on Wednesday to stand up for labour by voting for Bill C-234, put forward by my colleague from Jonquière, our deputy labour critic. It is anti-scab legislation.

So far it has been kind of motherhood stuff, easy to do. Bill C-4, for those of us who are progressive in any way, is not exactly a big leap, but if the government really wants to show that it is listening to the labour movement and wants to make sure that the labour movement has the ability to do the things the government gives it so many compliments for, it will be fascinating to once again watch the Liberals do their dance around things like anti-scab legislation.

I raise this in the context of Bill C-4, because in our opinion, the government cannot say that it is the best friend labour ever had by virtue of one bill, when there are other things. One of those other things, to the best of my knowledge, happens on Wednesday, with the vote on the anti-scab legislation. Liberals have 48 hours to sit back and think about whether they want to get re-elected, whether they really meant what they said to labour, whether passing Bill C-4 is going to cut it, or whether people in the labour movement are going to say that it is a fine start, but it is just a start.

The anti-scab legislation that comes up Wednesday will be a really historic day for labour. The Liberals talk a good game, but as soon as that legislation is in front of them, they run and hide and vote against it. I have seen it in minority governments, when we could have passed that legislation, but the Liberals let us down. This time they could do it on their own. They will start out with 44 votes in the NDP caucus, because we have always stood for anti-scab legislation. If the government really wants to balance the tables, that is the way to do it. That will be interesting to see.

In the context of Bill C-4 going forward, it will be interesting to see what the government will do about the other labour issues that are still in front of it and that are facing workers today. For instance, precarious work is one of the biggest issues. How many of us have children and grandchildren who do not have full-time work and do not expect to have full-time work, let alone lifetime work? They are living contract to contract. They do not have big unions to help them organize and bargain collective agreements. They are out there on their own. They need the government to step in and provide them with some rights. What is the government going to do about precarious work? What is the government going to do about pay equity? What is the government going to do about part-time and precarious work.

Those are just a few of the issues, but there are many more coming forward. As much as it hurts my heart a bit, I would be more than glad to stand here and compliment the government again if it delivers on those things. We shall see what we shall see.

Speaking to Bill C-4, I have been listening in particular to the Conservatives, although I do not know why, because it always give me a migraine when it comes to these kinds of issues.

They go on and on about the middle class. Who do they think really created the middle class, not just in Canada but in any other modern, mature democracy? In large part, that was the labour movement. Remember, child labour did not just come out of nowhere. There were people in the day who believed that was okay. We would not now. I like to think down the road anti-scab legislation will be seen as motherhood as the right to collective bargain. However, we still have that struggle in front of us right now.

I am reminded of something when I listen to the Conservatives talk about the damage they say is being done by repealing their two bills under Bill C-4. Let us remember. If we want to talk basics, let us go back to the 1940s, particularly in Ontario, which I know best, but it is a similar story across our country. That is when we had some of the major strikes that created and defined the labour movement. If we want to talk about guts, those people who went out on strike for their collective rights in those days put their jobs on the line. If we go back far enough, even meeting together could have gotten their heads busted open and/or they could have been thrown in jail.

Let me jump to a couple of things. The Rand formula in Ontario was a compromise between the need for a viable labour movement and a union that had the funds and structure to actually support and enforce the rights of members and to go into collective bargaining, and all that other stuff. They needed to do all of that, and in order for them to maintain that, while respecting the right of individuals to not necessarily agree with the philosophical direction of their union, the Rand formula said that workers did not have to join the union as a member, but they had to pay the dues. That was because they were getting the benefit of the negotiations that happened in their favour. Whether they supported the union or not their wages went up, their health and safety was better protected, their vacation rights were extended, and they got those rights. However, they did not have to actually join the union, and the union had an obligation to serve all its members equally whether they joined or not.

That kind of foundation started to be blown apart with the two bills from the Conservatives, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. That is why Bill C-4 is so important. It brings us back into the realm of reality in terms of what the history of the labour movement is, and I cannot believe I am going to use this term, and the social contract that was agreed between all of society in terms of how we would manage this new entity that exists to give rights to ordinary people when they did not have them before. They get their rights by working and bargaining collectively, and ultimately, if they have to, withdrawing that labour. It is a free country. It is that basic.

I just want to end with a reminder. When I was first active in the labour movement in the 1970s, I was a young guy of 24, elected to be president of my union of 2,200 members. I can remember at that time, in the seventies, people were saying there was no need for the labour movement, that it was okay in its day but it was not needed now. I have been hearing that for decades. Just ask the employees at U.S. Steel, or any of the other companies where benefits are being lost and retirement rights that were fought for and earned for a lifetime are being taken away. Ask them whether they think the labour movement should still be there.

The government is making some changes to CPP. Make no mistake, if the Canadian labour movement was not front and centre on that fight, and every other fight that matters to Canadians, these things would not happen. That is why it is important that Bill C-4 carry, but that it only be the first step. There is much more to be done.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. I want to thank this charming man for trying to pronounce the name of my riding correctly. That is to his credit.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to defend democracy and the hard work of all members elected democratically. I would never question their commitment. Whether it is on this side of the House or the government side, all bills must be dealt with in the same way. There are no backdoor bills. They are all equal because they come in through the front door and are voted on here, in the house, by all MPs who were duly elected in a secret democratic vote.

Today, however, I have to say that the debate on Bill C-4 speaks to me because this bill is a direct attack on democracy, transparency, and accountability. Every time the Liberal government stands up and claims to be transparent I just want to laugh. It is about as transparent as mud.

The way the Liberals have been behaving these past few months shows they do not care a fig about transparency. Bill C-4 is the Liberal way of doing things. Before that, Bill C-377 required unions to disclose detailed information about their finances. That was called “accountability and transparency”. There was also Bill C-525, which called for a secret ballot instead of a vote by a show of hands. That is democracy.

Bill C-4 guts the very principle of democracy. We all have a duty in the House to be transparent and to protect our beautiful democracy. As elected members, we are asked to open our books, so why would we not ask the same of the unions?

The government should be far more concerned about this. Accountability is top of mind for everyday Canadians. They have had it with cover-ups and endless spending. They want the truth and so do we. Coming from a government that spends with no regard for taxpayers' money, Bill C-4 does away with transparency and accountability, principles that we Tories on this side of the House have long stood for.

Taxpayers have the right to know and understand. We should all vote to make unions transparent, not just to their members, but also to the general public. Bill C-4 allows unions to hold votes by show of hands, which would allow unions not to disclose all their expenses or, worse yet, not to be accountable to union members, the government, and the general public.

In the most extreme cases, union leaders may threaten or intimidate their members into voting a certain way. It is also important to remember that, like any self-respecting country and like any government that respects its voters and citizens, we know that we have standards of transparency for unions that we expect them to uphold.

France, the United States, and Germany have laws in place to ensure union transparency because, like us, they know that nothing should be kept hidden from taxpayers. Why should unions not have these same standards of transparency? After all, they have taxation authority over their members.

It is appropriate for them to be accountable to the public. They are the only non-government institution that has the right to impose a tax on its members. In short, voting by secret ballot is essential to ensure the safety of all members, to make sure that everyone votes according to what they think is best for their working conditions, and above all, to allow the public to know where its money is going.

Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada clearly stated that “PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples.” What is more, Marc Roumy, an Air Canada employee, indicated that unions would be stronger and more legitimate and would receive more support if they were more accountable and transparent. I am wondering what my colleagues opposite think about that testimony from a union leader and an employee.

I do not know what the minister is hearing from the people in her riding, but those in my riding of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix want to know where their hard-earned money is going. My colleagues on this side of the House are all telling me the same thing.

We have to wonder what the government has to gain from such a bill. Why does the government have the support of the other opposition parties? Here is why: because they are financed by those very unions. Maybe this is just a way of thanking unions for the contributions they made a year ago. Nobody knows. It might also be them keeping the first of their election promises.

I am disappointed that the government is more interested in what union leaders have to say than in what the general population has to say. This government only has ears for its buddies and is happy to give them whatever they want. It does not listen to Canadians unless there is a photo op involved.

This has made me aware of some of the Liberal Party's disabilities. It is deaf to the people's opinions, dumb to union leaders, and blind to its friends' theft of taxpayer money.

I am very disappointed in this government. I will vote against this bill because I believe that transparency and accountability are of paramount importance to taxpayers.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. That has to be about the longest constituency name there is in Parliament. I congratulate the member for being the representative of a riding that I have a hard time pronouncing. However, she assures me it is a beautiful riding, and I must say that it is well represented.

I am pleased to voice my opposition to Bill C-4, the Liberal government's legislation to repeal two private members' bills that were actually passed in the former Parliament.

Bill C-377 provided a more robust accountability for union leaders. It added transparency to the process. Bill C-525 required the holding of a secret ballot for the creation and abolition of trade unions.

The Conservative government passed these two key laws on democracy and union transparency for one reason. Many of the workers approached these members of Parliament and told them stories about how they felt, that their rights or their ability to stand up and voice their frustrations or concerns were hindered. Therefore, two members brought the bills forward. However, the Liberals are reversing these two bills that brought accountability, transparency, and a stronger measure of democracy to the trade union system in Canada.

It is a shame that members of the Liberal Party have, throughout speeches earlier on today, undermined the private members' business process, diminishing the fact that it was just private members who brought these bills forward.

I remember when these bills came forward in the last Parliament. Russ Hiebert and also the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, when these bills came before caucus, sat down with opposition members and caucus members, and talked about the pros and cons. They told the stories about individuals who came forward saying that this would make a good bill, because they felt their rights were being hampered. Therefore, in some ways, to hear the attack on private members' business is disappointing. The result of what they have tried to do in Bill C-4 is actually anti-democratic, but the Liberals will not respect that.

What is worse is that these two bills are being repealed today by the government party and they are two bills that really strengthened Canada's democracy. They strengthened the accountability when it came to watch dogging the actions of unions in Canada. These two bills that the Liberals are scrapping gave Canadians and Canadian workers more insight into the workings of unions in Canada. They added transparency into the workings of unions for all Canadians, but most important, for those members themselves.

I might add that all the parties in the House of Commons, except for the Conservative Party of Canada, support this restoration of power of the union bosses over the average worker who is a member of the union. That average working Joe or Jane is also probably a member of the middle class, and we have the Liberals stripping rights from members of the middle class. Bill C-4 would strengthen the rights of the elites in the labour movement in Canada above the rights of those average union members.

This question was posed earlier. Did any constituents come to the Liberals now about Bill C-4?

I have had a couple of phone calls of disappointment that the Liberal government is doing this. However, in the last Parliament, I received a number of calls from my constituents, at meetings as well as calls into my riding, commending us for bringing this transparency and accountability into the union process. For the most part, they encouraged me to stand up in support of workers and union members against the iron-fist rule of their union bosses.

Canadians know that both before and during the election, for example, unions spent thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, to campaign in the last federal election, and that is nothing new.

I can recall a time a number of years ago when a constituent came to me, a member of the nurses' union, and told me how during the provincial election the union bosses, the union reps, went out of Edmonton, down to their union meeting, and laid down the law. I told her that she had a free vote, that she could vote for whomever she wanted in that provincial election. She told me that it was more than intimidation; it was bullying.

I am not saying that happens all the time, but the measures we brought forward in the last Parliament prevented that type of thing. Many members supported the Conservative Party, yet they were helpless when it came to stopping the unions from spending their union dues to fight against the Conservative Party of Canada in the last election. These union members were not asked by their union bosses if their union dues should be spent in the election; they just did it. There was no way for those Canadians to stop them from working for one party or another.

In fact, many union members did not even know their union was spending a great deal of money in the last federal campaign, and let us be honest, in many campaigns. The ones I am very much aware of in my riding were more in the provincial elections. If they did know, they had no way of finding out how much money their union was spending and how much of their dues actually went to fight an election.

What are the observations about the bill?

I believe the bill would be a bad law for democracy. It would be a bad thing for democracy in the whole structure of the workplace, unionization or not. It would be bad for transparency. It would cut out a level of transparency and accountability in Canada. In fact, this law would allow a backward step on democracy and transparency.

It is clear that, today, with Bill C-4, the Liberal Party is thanking the unions for spending the millions of dollars in the last election without having consulted their members. I think it is a payback.

It is an interesting observation that the first bill introduced by the government is not a bill to create jobs. It is not a bill to stimulate economic growth. It is not a bill that would do anything to help the economy. It would seem that the Liberals have given up on the economy. They said that they would go into $10-billion deficit. Then it was $30 billion, and hopefully that would kick-start the economy.

The bill would do nothing to create jobs. In fact, it would only serve to please union bosses. It would reduce transparency. We saw that with the first nations transparency act as well. It seems the government is bound and determined that those are the accomplishments it wants to be known for.

The big loser in this bill would be the average union workers who would be forced to pay union dues, while the union bosses would not have to consult with them or be accountable to their management for those union dues.

Morever, with the passage of Bill C-4, workers would now be forced into a position of publicly informing their colleagues whether they supported their union. This would exert undue pressure upon individual workers. At a public meeting, rather than having a secret ballot, even on the formation of a union or the disbanding of a union, the Liberals are now saying, no, the member should stand publicly and make his or her voice known.

Bill C-4 would abolish that secret ballot, and this is an attack on the process. The bill would violate the fundament principle of transparency. It is a disgrace and it is shameful. Bill C-4 would make it law that union bosses would be able to continue spending their members' fees without having to be accountable.

Why is it that important? Why do the members in Parliament worry about what the unions do?

Accountability is important to the public interest of Canadians, because union fees, as we have already discussed here in the House, reduce tax revenues, and it affects all Canadians. Union dues are not taxable, and therefore they reduce federal revenues.

I will not be supporting this bill. I realize that there was no consultation when this bill came forward. I recall, as I have stated, that the members who brought these private members' bills forward in the former Parliament did their due diligence. They did their homework. They spoke with unions, union workers, businesses, and colleagues here.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the reasoning of my colleagues in government and those from the other opposition.

Things are quite clear to us. We had Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which helped our unionized workers and allowed them to see what the big unions were doing with their money. That made things very transparent. We, the members of the former Conservative government, offered transparency to unionized workers. Today, the government wants to bring back union secrecy. It makes no sense.

I am trying to understand the question because I believe that what the government is currently doing makes no sense.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to hear the question again to follow what my colleague said, but for us, today's debate is on Bill C-4, which would repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. It is unacceptable to us that Bill C-4 would repeal those two pieces of legislation.

My colleague and I would have to discuss this further outside because I cannot remember everything she said. It is clear to us that Bill C-4 would simply nullify what our government did to achieve union transparency and respect.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood for his excellent speech.

The former Conservative government was a government of principle. We believe in democracy and people's choice and we are working to make the federal government more transparent. We worked toward that goal for the nearly 10 years that we were in office. That is why we supported Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, and 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, also known as the Employees' Voting Rights Act.

These two bills, which were introduced by members and passed by both chambers, helped to advance the labour movement, regulate it in a transparent manner, and modernize it. Bill C-525 made voting by secret ballot mandatory. Secret ballot voting is so revolutionary. It has never been tested before, except in referendums and federal, provincial, municipal, and school elections.

It took a law to make unions hold secret ballot votes. In fact, many provincial legislatures had to enact legislation in that regard, including Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia.

Bill C-377 required unions to disclose how union dues were spent. It was not complicated, it was just common sense, especially because the money was deducted from paycheques as a result of an established practice. In short, these two bills would have made much needed changes to unions.

I wanted to participate in the debate to speak out against what the government is doing. It is disappointing. The government's 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, will repeal these two bills.

It is disappointing to see that the Liberals, who claim to defend the middle class, widows, and orphans, are reinstating union secrecy. On the other side of the House, secret ballots and transparency concerning the use of financial resources are not important. It is not very surprising, but it is disappointing.

The Liberals' priority is to thank the big unions for throwing money at them to help get them elected. That is exactly what this government is doing with Bill C-4: it is thanking the big unions that spent big money during the last election.

It is partly for that reason that we had the longest election campaign on record. It was to prevent major unions from repeating what they did in the last Ontario election: they plastered the province with negative ads about a party in order to influence the vote. For these big unions, and for the Liberals, the interests of workers, their members, are far less important than their own corporate interests. It is not even close.

Bill C-4 spells the end for union certification by secret ballot. The big unions are free to keep using their intimidation and scare tactics to force employees into joining a union against their will. It is sad to see a strong-arm policy being enshrined by the government.

The government is failing to protect the silent majority, middle-class workers who have a hard time making ends meet and fear reprisals. They end up buying peace by keeping mum and voting against their conscience. The government is favouring the corporate interests of the big unions that need the millions of dollars in union dues that are taken off the paycheques of unionized workers.

There are many stories of intimidation. Out of fear of reprisals, or to stop the intolerable pressure, many people end up folding and agreeing to sign the certification form. They do not sign because they believe a union might be good for them, but because they feel threatened.

When the time comes to vote for or against unionization, the vote is rarely done by secret ballot. It is by a show of hands, or twisted arms if I may put it that way. Out of fear of being branded if they do not comply with their leaders, many workers choose to go with the flow instead of voting their conscience.

Workers do not vote their conscience. They are intimidated during the process, and they know that the intimidation will not stop if they persist in their opposition.

Even dictatorships that hold elections to legitimize their leaders' leadership do not vote that way. Most of the time, there is a secret ballot that gives people a choice: they can support the dictator or not. That is the way it has to be.

Everyone here would be up in arms if people could not vote their conscience because of intimidation or if intimidation shaped the outcome of any election to public office. The system as we know it would collapse. Why, then, would we accept or tolerate such a system for unions? It is inconceivable. Such behaviour is not tolerated in schoolyards, and so much is being done to counter bullying, but the government has no problem with bullying in a union context.

Secret ballots also protect employees from the possibility of their employer pressuring them not to unionize. Many employers abuse their workers and threaten to close up shop to avoid unionization.

If the majority want to unionize, and a secret ballot vote confirms it, there can be doubt about the will expressed by the workers. Why does anyone need to know how people voted, other than to apply pressure? No one in the House knows exactly who voted for whom in the last election. Secret ballot voting allows everyone to vote according to his or her conscience.

We can understand the Liberals' interest in letting the big labour organizations work under a shroud of secrecy with the money they collect every week from their members. After all, this government loves its doublespeak.

First of all, the government got caught using the public purse as a slush fund to pay for its own little whims. It was not until it was caught red-handed that the government agreed to apologize and admit its mistakes. It was not until the Minister of Health was caught making excessive expense claims for limousine service while in Toronto that she finally apologized and agreed to pay back that unjustifiable expense. It is even worse here, when we all know that Canadians already pay for a car and driver service for ministers.

Were it not for the monitoring by the House, we and Canadians would have been kept in the dark about the piles of money made available to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for hiring photographers to take a bunch of pictures. Like a big union, the government would have preferred this crazy expense to be kept under wraps for good.

The same goes for the exorbitant moving expenses that the Prime Minister signed off on for his two main advisors and friends, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford. More than $220,000 was paid out to his close friends. It pays to be in the Prime Minister's inner circle.

Canadians are outraged to see their money being used as petty cash for the Prime Minister's close friends. Of course, in four years Canadians can get rid of the government if they are not satisfied.

Canadians benefit from having an opposition that hounds the government to be accountable with public money. Sadly, that is not the case with the big unions.

Although a unionized member can request access to statements showing how the union uses the funds it receives, that member cannot do much to limit the union's choice to support causes other than protecting and promoting workers' rights.

Let me be clear. I recognize that unions have a role to play as the representatives of workers when working conditions are being negotiated. However, influencing the outcome of an election and supporting charitable organizations are not really activities that protect workers.

The millions of dollars spent by Ontario unions on advertising in Ontario during the last election campaign boggles the mind. The big unions were defending their own corporate interests and not those of their members. Many union members are calling for more transparency from their unions and less involvement in matters that have nothing to do with protecting workers' rights. Paying for a plane to fly a banner urging people not to elect a prime minister does not help a union's members in the least. If leaders want to be involved in politics, they should stand for election. Many parties defend the interests of big unions in the House. They have lots to choose from.

However, if they are interested in protecting their workers, that is what their activities should focus on. Most of the time, union leaders spend money on things that have nothing to do with their mandate and without obtaining the support of their members. They act somewhat like kings who view the union dues collected as their booty. Workers are entitled to the same rigour from their union leaders when it comes to the money collected from their paycheques.

It is important to understand that there is no freedom of association in Canada's labour movement. With the Rand formula, when a union reaches the number of members required to become certified, union dues are automatically deducted from the paycheques of all employees, whether they were in favour of certification or not. That being the case, I think it is even more appropriate to have measures requiring large unions to keep their members and the general public informed of what they are doing with the dues they receive.

Our parliamentary system is based on the principle of no taxation without representation. In order to bring in a tax, authorization must be obtained from an elected chamber. There is a principle of accountability. Unions do not have that principle. Although workers' dues are collected systematically like taxes, there are transparency measures to show how the amounts collected by the unions are used.

For all of the reasons that I just mentioned and for many others put forward by my colleagues before me, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who did excellent work on this file, I have to say that I oppose this bill. This bill is not in keeping with this government's commitment to be open and transparent. It rewards the big unions and does nothing to protect workers—

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-4. Today, I will be splitting my time with a colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The bill that was introduced by the Liberal government certainly attacks the principles of our democracy, our accountability, and certainly our transparency. Two previous private members' bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525—and we have talked all afternoon in the House about them—which passed, are now under major attack.

Bill C-377 dealt with accountability. Bill C-525 deals with the democratic process, and we have talked a lot about the secret ballot.

Let us talk about the transparency of Bill C-377. All public bodies have rulings requiring transparency and accountability: members of Parliament, all 338 of us, all federal and provincial departments, crown corporations, municipalities, and RMs. In many ways, this is how we are judged in life. We are judged personally, and we are certainly judged by it in government. At the end of the day, how well we manage our affairs is what we are remembered for.

Charitable organizations are constantly asking for donations, and they have to be transparent. We want to know where the money is going. It is called a paper trail. Is management taking a lead role in transparency in charitable organizations? Many of us, coast to coast to coast, do a lot of charity work in our communities. I urge members to get to know more about the organization. What does it stand for, and, not only that, where is the money going? That is the essence of Bill C-4.

Under a union shop, employees pay a percentage of union dues. Are the employees aware of what the dues are used for? Where are the dues going? Are unions and their leaders transparent? They should be, especially when there is a major tax credit for deductions.

Many of us who have been union members over the last number of years, like me, for nearly 40 years, made voluntary payments to the union and it spent the money. That is the way it goes. If I went to another charity, for example, I could pick my charity, but in the union, it goes to that union.

Deductions add up to roughly, and we all heard it in House today, $500 million annually. That is a half a billion dollars. Canadians should know where that money is going.

In the past federal election, we had unions actively involved in third-party advertising. We had unions actually paying members to stand behind a party when they were doing announcements. Imagine actually paying members to participate? That was certainly a no-no. Transparency is one of the fundamental principles of democracy.

Now, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are under attack. Unions are taking those dues and spending millions of dollars in advertising. Are members aware of how much of their money is going to advertising? Members may not have the same view as that of the union, and yet they have little or no say on where that money is going or on which billboard.

Are members aware of salaries that are being paid to their union leaders? Are they aware of the travel involved and all of the benefits that some of these union leaders charge?

Canadians care about accountability. They want every government to be accountable. I do not have to remind members across the way about developments that have happened in the last week. All 338 members show our expenses to the public. This is what we call transparency. Even those who are not elected, as we found out last week, are now being singled out for the lack of accountability, and they certainly should be. All Canadians, all 38 million people, want to know about that, especially after it was the Prime Minister who signed off on these expenses.

Bill C-525 requires a secret ballot for union certification. If union members wanted to terminate their union certification, that also had to be done by secret ballot. The secret ballot, of course, has always been part of democracy. All members in the House were elected by the secret ballot. Even as we look at electoral reform right now, we all understand it is mandatory to have the secret ballot. That will occur in 2019. I would say that will never change.

How can members of the House of Commons be against a secret ballot? Secret ballot principles exist in provincial legislatures, in my home province of Saskatchewan, along with B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Years ago, some union shop members pressured my members to vote a certain way. We certainly hope that does not happen in the year of 2016.

Members pay union dues, and I think they should have a say in where their money goes and how it is spent. It is called accountability. We expect our union leaders, who are elected by a secret ballot, to be accountable to their membership. As I mentioned, I was part of the union for 39 years. We expected our leadership to come forward each and every month with the financial situation.

I think the biggest losers in all of the talk we have heard today are the ordinary union members who go about their business each day trusting that everything is on the up and up. They are the ones who work hard every day in this country, who do not want to get involved in the union issues because of family, or simply because they are not interested. Yet, they are a union member and are told to pay union dues. They are the ones who are hurt by this bill, because they have a harder time getting access now to certain information. We all need democracy in this system, which includes secret ballots.

We move on to Bill C-525, and it is all about accountability. If the workers are happy with their union, they will support them on a secret ballot. If accountability does not happen, then they have the right to decertify. That should have that opportunity, also through the secret ballot.

Some say that the former government, our Conservative government, was pro-business, and so be it. There is always a balance between business and workers. If treated well by owners, there are no union issues. In my previous career, we had 40 years with the union and not once did we ever lock out, not once did we ever threaten the company. We were always at work. We may have taken a little longer sometimes to get an agreement, but that was the process we wished to have.

If workers are treated well by owners, there is no union issue. Too often, though, in the past, it was the union that pushed the envelope, causing tension between some workers and owners. That is when there are issues that can damage a relationship and cause devastating results. It can essentially cause a business to close. We have seen that in this country. That is when everyone, including the owner and the workers, is the loser. We have seen that with EI going up in the last year.

As I conclude, every day in this country, there are agreements signed between management and unions. Some take longer than others for various reasons. Bill C-4 undermines the secret ballot vote, a cornerstone of our democracy. If the process is good enough to elect us, the MPs, it should be good enough to ratify collective agreement from coast to coast to coast.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague asked that question, because in just about every answer from across the floor we hear that they are working hard to strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. What about the 125,000 who have just left the middle class in Alberta's energy sector? We do not hear a word about that. Repealing Bill C-4 would certainly not get those people back to work.

Our priority in the House right now should be to come up with ideas and a plan and policy that would attract investment back to Canada. We talked about it the other day. Encana is now investing $1 billion in the oil sector in Texas, not here in Canada. The United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and France all have similar legislation to Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Why are we the one western democracy to be eliminating the opportunity for Canadian workers to have a secret ballot, when our priority should really be finding a way to get those 125,000 Canadians back to work?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate her question, but I am not on the committee, so I do not want to speak for my colleagues on the committee.

What I can say is that we were quite satisfied, obviously, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. There was great support from Canadians. We do not want to see those two pieces of legislation repealed. I do not think there is an amendment to Bill C-4 that we would be in support of because Bill C-4 is repealing two critical pieces of legislation.

I cannot speak for the NDP members, but we heard from our colleagues across the floor that one of the biggest issues with bills C-525 and C-377 was they were private members' bills. I'm really looking forward to seeing those two bills put back into legislation, but maybe through a government bill from the Liberal Party.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4. I have been really discouraged as I have listened to the debate over the past eight or nine months. One of the themes that keeps coming up is that somehow private members' bills are illegitimate and that this is something that we were bringing through the back door.

We did a lot of consultation. Again, I would like to commend my colleague, the member from Red Deer—Lacombe, who put a lot of work into crafting this private member's bill that was passed in the House in a democratic process, through a vote, which I think is a fundamental part of this, that gave workers the opportunity to a secret ballot. It is disappointing that I have heard from my colleagues across the floor that these bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, do nothing more than force unions to bring forward useless financial information and that it is unfair to have a secret ballot.

For a government that campaigned on a foundation of openness and transparency, I find it very ironic that it is now, today, and has been for the last eight months, on Bill C-4, talking about how unfair it is to have a secret ballot and how unfair it is to ask unions to make public their financial information, financial information consisting of a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money that is tax exempt. I think the Canadian people have a right to know how those dollars are being spent, but most important, it is important that the workers themselves know how those dollars are being spent.

My colleague, the member for Carleton, did a phenomenal job of talking about the history of secret ballots and our labour relations program, but what I want to talk about today is what I find frustrating in terms of the priorities of the Liberal government.

Obviously, I come from the province of Alberta. Things are very difficult right now. It is difficult to see that one of the first things the Minister of Employment did when she came into government was to try to repeal legislation that we put forward to ensure that unions had open and transparent government and employees had the opportunity to a secret ballot. Things have only gotten worse in Alberta over that time and I have not seen our employment minister speak once about what is going on in Alberta and some of the things that the government could be doing to try to turn the situation around.

One part of the employment minister's title that has not been stripped from her role is “workforce development”. I think she has an opportunity to change her priorities from repealing what is good legislation to talking about getting Albertans and Canadians back to work. There are probably more than 100,000 energy workers now unemployed and looking for work. These are families who are having a tough time paying their mortgages, putting food on the table, putting their kids in sports, in hockey, and it is only getting worse. Employment insurance claims in Alberta are up 90% over the past year. The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors has said that employment will be down 60%, from 2014 numbers. This is something that is going on across the country. I know we talk about the employment situation in Alberta being dire, that there is an 8.6% unemployment rate, which is the highest it has been in decades, but this is something that impacts Canadians from coast to coast.

It is very unfortunate that we have a Liberal government and an employment minister, specifically, who has really been missing in action on this. Her number one priority is repealing these pieces of legislation. I think that her priority and her focus right now should actually be on workforce development, which is one of her roles. One of those things that we could be doing in terms of workforce development is advocating for shovel-ready projects, things like the northern gateway pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, things that will actually develop a workforce and get these unemployed Canadians, especially, Albertans in the energy sector, back to work.

When the Trans Mountain pipeline comes to cabinet, perhaps next month, will the minister be in that cabinet room? Will she be a voice for Canadian workers? Will she be a voice for Canada's energy sector? Will she be a voice for investment in Canada, or will she be just standing there, missing in action? Will she be a voice for and support the trans-Canada pipeline and get Canadians back to work rather than spending her time advocating for, what I feel, is a very low priority, which is Bill C-4?

I hope she has an opportunity to answer that today on how she will be advocating for the Trans Mountain pipeline when it comes before cabinet next month.

I look at Bill C-4 as a real step backward. Bill C-525 gave Canadian workers a chance for a secret ballot, which is I believe in vehemently. It is a cornerstone, a foundation, of our Canadian democracy. I am surprised that the Liberal government wants to repeal this.

Quite regularly now, the Liberal government is trying arbitrarily to make a change to a fundamental piece of our democracy, including now how we elect our parliamentarians. The Liberals are doing this with, we will say, consultations. They want to make a change to a fundamental part of our democracy without really consulting Canadians through a referendum. Why should we be surprised they would want to make a change to how unions could have a secret-ballot vote when they are going to make that same change to how Canadians elect their government? I find it ironic that the Liberals, piece by piece, are taking away the voice of Canadians.

It also shows, in my opinion, that when we spoke to Bills C-525 and C-377, we had very strong support from union workers. Some of our polling across Canada showed that as many as 86% of those polled supported this kind of legislation. To repeal that with very little if any consultation, I find very disingenuous. I do not think the Liberals have taken the opportunity to speak to union members and to get their feedback on that.

During the election last fall, I spoke to tens of thousands of my residents, and not once did this issue come up as a priority for the people in the riding of Foothills—not once. Certainly I had people talking about creating jobs and ensuring that our economy is strong, but I never had a single person at a door say to me that he or she would like us to repeal bills that encourage openness and transparency and give Canadian workers the opportunity for a secret-ballot vote. I would encourage the members opposite to tell me how often they had that answer at doors.

Bill C-4 is really about eliminating openness and transparency and removing the opportunity for Canadian workers to have a secret-ballot vote, which is a fundamental part of our democracy. To me, it is a cornerstone of what Canada was built on. It just seems backward for us to be taking away that right from Canadian workers.

Parliament is also discussing Bill C-7, which is a similar process for the RCMP. Are my Liberal colleagues on the other side of the floor also saying that they want to deny RCMP members the right to a secret-ballot vote when it comes to their opportunity to form or not form a union? I find this extremely disingenuous.

Looking through some data, what I find the most frustrating about this is that we are taking up some very important time in the House when we could be dealing with more important issues, such as employment and the economy. When we ask Canadians, we hear they support openness and transparency. When we ask Canadian workers, they say they support openness and transparency. However, it seems the only ones who do not are the members of the current Liberal government, which flies against everything they have talked about as we go through this.

The Liberals talked about consultation, which I do not believe has happened with Bill C-4. The more we sit here and talk about this, the more they delay a decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline; the more they delay a decision on the hearings on energy east; and the more they delay a decision on northern gateway, the ratification of the trans-Pacific partnership, and a softwood lumber agreement. On the really important things that the current government should be getting at and doing, it is not acting. The Liberals are spending their time pandering to big union bosses rather than pounding the pavement and helping to create jobs for Canadians who are struggling woefully right now.

In conclusion, I want to assure the residents of my constituency of Foothills that the Conservatives are fighting hard to ensure that they have a voice and an advocate for what they feel are most important: jobs, a strong economy, and their family.

Unlike the Liberals, who seem to think that workforce development is a bit of an oxymoron, we will be a champion for the energy sector, for small business, for Canadian investors, and for our farmers and our ranchers. These are the people who are creating growth. These are the groups and the folks who are creating jobs. It is not the union bosses. That should be the priority.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 would repeal Bills C-377 and C-525, which totally restrict unions from working and having relationships with labour unions and employers. Until Bill C-4 is passed, the relationship between the unions and the employers will not be solid and will not benefit workers. They are not going to work properly. The Liberals feel the relationship should be restored. The balance among unions, employers, and employees must be restored, and Bill C-4 would do that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we saw where the Rand Formula got Tim Hudak last time around.

People who follow the labour movement and issues related to it would know what Andrew Sims, probably the foremost authority on labour relations in our country, has said. The member for Hochelaga talked about the anti-scab legislation. During his last review of the Canada Labour Code, Andrew Sims said that there was an issue that employers and employees could not agree on, which was back-to-work legislation, that the way the current system worked was fine, and that it was not perfect, but it was the best it could be.

There was one thing that came out loud and clear during the hearings on Bills C-377 and C-525. Hassan Yussuff, Jerry Dias, AFL-CIO, and all those who gave presentations from the labour movement and labour relations across the country said that it should be done in a tripartite manner, with employers, employees, and government, not by single one-off private member's legislation. There was a consistency in that testimony.

Does my colleague believe that this is one of the main reasons for repealing these two bad bills? There was no need for these bills. They were a solution in search of a problem. Does he agree that is part of the reason these bills should be repealed?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the bigger role being played by the unions in our economy and helping the middle class to prosper. The prosperity of the middle class and the Canadian economy depend upon the harmonious balance of that relationship. However, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 created imbalances in the relationship between the unions, employers, and employees, which would be corrected by Bill C-4. We suggest that Bill C-4 is the only bill that can remedy the problems created by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House in support of Bill C-4, which was tabled last January by my colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

As members know, improving labour relations is one of our government's priorities. I therefore ask all hon. members to support this bill.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act by repealing the provisions enacted by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

These bills force unions to produce useless financial statements and make it harder for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to unionize. Basically, Bill C-4 is a matter of justice and fairness for the workers affected.

Members know as well as I do that good labour relations are essential in ensuring Canada's economic growth and prosperity. Labour relation legislation ensures some balance between employer, employees, and unions. Our government understands this.

When the previous government supported Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, we opposed them and tried to make the government understand that these legislative measures was unjust and unfair. However, our efforts were in vain. The previous government refused to listen to reason and chose to move ahead, even if it meant jeopardizing the fragile balance that had been achieved in employer-employee relations. We were not the only ones who raised the red flag on those bills.

Bill C-4 is the right thing to do. The purpose of the bill is to essentially remedy this by restoring justice and fairness to Canadian labour relations. Many stakeholders expressed their concern. Overwhelming evidence has been heard on Bill C-4.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada supported Bill C-4, saying that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were flawed, were introduced without proper consultation, and were detrimental to the rights of workers.

Further, Bill C-4 is hailed by the Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario for restoring the labour relations in Canada.

Bill C-377 would force unions and labour trusts to declare their expenses, assets, debts, and the salaries of certain individuals. That information would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website. They would also have to provide details on time spent on political and lobbying activities, as well as any activities not directly related to labour relations.

Thankfully, the Minister of National Revenue has already taken steps to lift these obligations while Parliament examines Bill C-4.

We have to understand that if this information was made public, these measures would put unions at a huge disadvantage to employers.

Bill C-377 unfortunately upset the balance that had existed. However, provisions were already in place to ensure that unions met their financial responsibilities. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code and many provincial labour relations laws already require unions and employers to provide financial statements.

Bill C-525 would also create a major advantage for management. The bill amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to change the union certification system.

The traditional card verification system was replaced by a mandatory voting system. Unions are no longer certified automatically, even if the majority of workers have signed a membership card. The rule in existence was clear and well understood. Private sector workers with federally regulated employers could obtain union certification by signing a union membership card.

For example, under the Canada Labour Code, if the majority of employees' signatures were recorded on union membership cards, those cards were sent to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to obtain certification. Even if 35% of the workers were in favour of unionization, a formal vote was taken. However, unions now have to obtain support from 40% of workers before mandatory secret ballot votes can be held.

This system had a proven track record, however, the previous government chose to change things for purely ideological reasons. This double standard is grossly unfair because it makes unionization much more difficult.

We recognize the essential role unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper. The prosperity of the middle class and of the Canadian economy depend upon harmonious and balanced labour relations. Bill C-4 has been tabled to redress the imbalances in labour relations created by the previous government.

I sincerely hope that other hon. members will see the benefits of Bill C-4, which would re-establish a balance between the rights and responsibilities of the employers and those of employees. We have a duty to intervene, and we are proud to do so today.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his fine speech.

During the election campaign, I certainly heard in many parts of my riding opposition to what the Conservatives had brought in with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

I wonder if the member could highlight some of the reasons he thinks the Conservatives brought that in, why it was so unfair and unpopular with workers, not only in my riding but across the country, and why it is important to make sure that we repeal those bills now.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak in support of 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.

Bill C-4 is a small step forward. It recognizes the need to respect the rights of hard-working men and women across the country. Since I have been an advocate for the rights of working men and women for many years, it should come as no surprise that I support this legislation.

My colleagues in the NDP caucus and I are happy to see critical rights restored to hard-working Canadians. However, this bill is only a first small step. We worry about the erosion of workers' rights under the previous government. There are so many questions and concerns. We look to the Liberal government to restore each and every one of the rights stolen from Canadian workers.

We also ask the government to update parts of the Canada Labour Code that are about 60 years out of date. One way to rectify this problem would be to act immediately on the recommendations in the final report of the 2006 review of the Labour Code. This is something long overdue. Many of the recommendations would provide much-needed updates and would benefit many hard-working Canadians who work two or three part-time jobs trying to support a family and purchase or maintain a home.

It is amazing that in a few short years we have seen the dismantling of the rights of each and every individual across the nation. These are rights that have taken decades to create and develop. These are rights that protect each and every one of us, especially those who are the most vulnerable.

New Democrats vigorously opposed the former Conservative government's attempts to restrict the rights of unions and to change the rules governing labour relations under the guise of increased transparency. During the election, we committed that an NDP government would repeal Bill C-525, on union representation, and Bill C-377, concerning the supposed transparency of labour organizations.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary and discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. The bill was pushed through Parliament by the previous government despite widespread opposition from a variety of interests, not just unions.

Many people knew there would be negative effects from this legislation well beyond its impact on unions. Many groups and associations represented individuals whose rights they consider important, whether one belonged to a union or not. Those groups included the NHL Players' Association, provincial governments, Conservative and Liberal senators, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry in Canada.

New Democrats agree with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who believes that the bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If this legislation is not repealed, it will almost certainly be defeated in the courts.

New Democrats opposed Bill C-377 at every stage, because the legislation was as unnecessary as it was irresponsible. It corrupted the very ideal of fairness and balance in negotiations between the parties and undermined the fundamental right to free collective bargaining. It was a partisan assault on the men and women who go to work every day to provide for their families.

Canada needs a strong and healthy trade union movement. Unions in Canada have done so much not only for their members but for Canadian society as a whole. When unions are weakened, all working people feel it, and why is that? It is because attacks on collective bargaining do not promote economic growth. In fact, the opposite occurs. Attacks like these promote inequality, not a healthy economy.

The previous government claimed its support of Bill C-377 was based on providing transparency. What it failed to mention was that unions are already required to make their financial information available to their members. The bill represented an unnecessary duplication. It was a solution to a non-existing problem.

On top of this, the bill would have cost taxpayers a great deal of money to implement. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that it would cost much more than the $2 million allocated by the CRA for this level of monitoring. It was estimated that the Canada Revenue Agency would have to spend $21 million over the first two years just to establish an electronic database and $2.1 million each year thereafter. That is ridiculously expensive, especially for something that is clearly redundant and represents unnecessary harassment. The bill should never have seen the light of day, and its repealing just makes sense.

Bill C-4 would also repeal another anti-union private member's bill supported by the previous government, Bill C-525. New Democrats fully support repealing that bill. The bill attacks the fundamental right of association, making certification of new worker associations or unions much more difficult while at the same time allowing the decertification of existing unions to be much easier.

These changes to labour laws were made despite there being zero evidence of any problems with the previous system of union certification.

A union, like any other type of association, exists to provide support and a voice to its members. What right does a government have to meddle in the daily management of any worker association or union? Very simply, it has no right. Such destructive meddling represented more than some childish act of union busting, and the effects would have had an impact on all Canadians.

Whether a person supports unions or not, the fact is that unions have been a driving force in ensuring that all hard-working Canadians, whether unionized or not, receive a basic level of rights, freedoms, and protections.

Organized associations of working people are important to Canadians and the economy. Higher wages negotiated by unions improve the lives of everyday Canadians by injecting an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week. Standing in the way of the well-being of hard-working Canadians is bad policy, bad governance, and bad fiscal management, and it is bad for the economy.

I join with the Canadian unions that are pleased that the federal government has introduced legislation to repeal both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff, has said,:

...these bills were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions' ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

Mark Hancock, National President of CUPE, echoed those sentiments when he said:

This is good news for all Canadian workers. These bills were nothing more than political attacks on unions and we are happy that the new government is moving quickly to correct these wrongs.... This is a good step in re-establishing a sense of respect for unions, the democratic voice of working people.

The UFCW said this:

UFCW is pleased to see the government tabling Bill C-4. Our union campaigned vigorously against the Conservative Government's Bill C-377 in the last parliament. The bill was undemocratic, and part of the Conservative government's campaign against workers and workplace democracy. It was also a major invasion of the privacy of individual union members and it infringed on provincial jurisdiction over labour issues.

Repealing Bill C-377 is positive for all Canadians as this bill would have been expensive for the government to implement and monitor.

The NDP will continue to push the government to restore and enhance collective bargaining rights as well as fair working conditions for all Canadians. The NDP will continue to pressure the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to enact anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation.

Likewise, the NDP will also push the government to repeal the previous government's dangerous legislation, also entitled Bill C-4, and not just review it. This contentious Conservative legislation has been called unconstitutional and stacks the deck in the government's favour, undermining fair collective bargaining. Some people claim that the bill turned back the clock almost 50 years, and I certainly agree. A bill this backward needs to be repealed and not just reviewed.

Having fought hard against these unnecessary and irresponsible bills, the NDP welcomes the changes tabled by the current government. The rights of working people have been under attack for far too long and the repeal of these bills is a good first step, but there is much more to do for workers' rights and for working conditions for Canadian men and women.

The NDP will push the government to restore good faith bargaining with our public sector workers. We will push the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to ensure that workers have fair and independent health and safety protections. We will push the government to adopt anti-scab and pay equity legislation, because all Canadian workers deserve fairness and respect.

Bill C-4 is a very good step. However, it does not go far enough, and there are still many questions and concerns. We can and we must do better. Canadians are counting on us.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know, as a proud member of a union, that I had access to that information long before the Conservatives cooked up Bills C-377 and C-525. It was a made-up problem.

The answer to the member's question is, yes, they should have access to that information. That is something for unions to make available to them in-house. It does not mean it needs to be broadcast on a website to the entire country.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate joining the debate with my friend and colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I have a great deal of respect for his ability to step dance and I know first-hand the opposition he posed to both Bills C-377 and C-525 and the work that he does within the labour movement in this country.

He is very supportive of the bill, but in the last exchange, he brought up the anti-scab legislation that his party is proposing in the private member's bill that it is putting forward now. He would know that when Bills C-377 and C-525 were in committee, witness after witness said private members' bills are not the way to change the Canada Labour Code. That is not the way to change labour law in this country. We need a tripartite system where employers, employees, and government can sit down to find a way forward through consultation and consensus.

Does he know that one of the gurus of labour relations in this country, Andrews Sims, said not to change the labour code through private member's legislation, that it is the wrong way to go, and to do it through a tripartite approach by making amendments to the code?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I am very pleased to be speaking at third reading of Bill C-4. I wish I had had the opportunity to do it sooner, because this is a good example of legislation that ought to have passed through the House far more quickly than it has. It was a clear commitment of the government during the election campaign. There is multi-party support within the House to get it done. It has been reported recently, and it is quite true, that it has been a relatively light legislative agenda from the government. Here we have a piece of legislation that is not competing for time with other government bills, because there are not that many. It is almost a year into the government's mandate and we are still talking about repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. With the exception of those members who belong to the party that brought those bills in, there is virtually a consensus here in the House. If there was a bill that was going to move quickly through Parliament this would have been the bill. It is a bit of a mystery why it is we are still debating it almost a year out from the election when we should be passing it.

I know all the members in the chamber by now are quite familiar with what Bill C-4 does. It repeals two acts from the previous Parliament. One is Bill C-377, which was a kind of red tape bill for unions. It was based on the pretense that simply because union members get some money back on their taxes for the dues they claim, the government has the right to mandate that they make all of their expenses public to everyone. It was not being asked of non-profit groups, whose donors also receive money back. The government was not saying that because corporations get to write off expenses, which is money back from the government, their books should be made open. It was discriminatory in the sense that it really did just focus on unions, who happened to be, it is fair to say, an opponent of the previous government. Therefore, there was a sense that it was a politically motivated targeting.

There were many parties in the House that agreed the bill simply had to go. I am glad to see we are moving forward with that, although I believe we could move forward more quickly.

Bill C-525 from the last Parliament made it easier to decertify unions, and therefore, made it harder to have a higher rate of unionization within the federal workforce. We know from many studies that in the lead-up to secret ballot voting it did that in two ways. It raised the threshold of members in a workplace who would have to consent to have a secret ballot vote in order to certify and it took away the option to certify through a card check. Card check means members in a workplace sign a card affirming they would like to be represented by a union and which union they would like to represent them. If a certain threshold of workers sign cards, that obviates the need to go to a secret ballot vote because a majority, whatever that majority happens to be, in this case it was 50% plus 1%, have indicated their support for the idea of having a union in the workplace.

We know through a number of studies and research into this that in the lead-up to secret ballot votes there are often instances of intimidation by employers of their employees. That can lead to a change in the outcome of the vote. In fact, success with those secret ballot votes is often inversely correlated with the length of time between announcing the intention to vote and the vote itself. The longer the period between the stated intention of having a vote to certify and the vote itself, the less likely that vote is to be successful. We know that is often because it gives the employer more time to use certain kinds of intimidation tactics on their employees to make them afraid of certifying.

That is the package we are talking about getting rid of.

I have already spoken a bit about how I think it would have been better if we had been able to pass Bill C-4 earlier in the term. I am thinking of a few other related labour-type issues and legislation that we have been dealing with in the House. I am trying to learn a lesson about the new government and what it means for something to be a priority of the government, because if anything was a priority, if we look at election commitments, this was a very clear commitment. It was shouted from the rooftops by the Liberals during the election. A major part of their strategy for doing outreach within the labour world was that they were going to get this done.

This should be a priority. Why it is not done I cannot fathom. Some may say on the other side of the House that it is because Conservatives want to talk out the bill, but Conservatives were not in favour of Bill C-10. We were not in favour of Bill C-10. I believe my colleagues from the Bloc and the Green Party were not in favour of Bill C-10. Nobody else in the House except members of the government were in favour of Bill C-10, an act that has made it easier to export aerospace maintenance jobs out of Canada to other shores, even though that was not an election commitment, even though that came out of left field, and in an important sense was not therefore a priority of government, certainly not one of stated ones. I have not seen that on the list of any priorities of the Liberals, to make it harder to employ Canadian aerospace maintenance workers. That does not appear on any document that I have seen. If it does appear somewhere I would sure like to see it. Maybe we could have that tabled.

That was not a priority of government and that is signed, sealed, and delivered for the executives of Air Canada. That is done. This was a priority for Canadian workers, for labour activists, and a stated priority of the Liberal government, and here we are still talking about it when the ship for Bill C-10, which may be mixing metaphors, has long since sailed. I find that one hard to wrap my head around.

I think about another labour issue that has been before the House, Bill C-7, which sets a framework for RCMP members to bargain collectively. That had a Supreme Court imposed deadline. In fact, I think it is fair to say with hindsight that the deadline was used as an excuse to get that legislation through. We were told that maybe there were things that were not great about the bill, but it had to get passed by May 16 or the sky was going to fall and we were not going to be able to proceed in an orderly fashion with the certification of the union for RCMP members. That is what we were told. May 16 has long since gone by and that bill went to the Senate where amendments were made, but we have been back now for two weeks and I do not see when we are going to start talking about Bill C-7. If the government has a plan to bring that forward, I would sure like to know and I know there are RCMP members across the country who would like to know it is going to be brought forward.

There we have it again. Another priority of the government and it is sitting on the books, when legislative favours for Air Canada executives are what is really being rammed through and that is where the real priority of the Liberals has been. It is to get those things done that they never talked about, while things that have been on the books for a while and stated priorities of the government continue to languish. If there is a lesson in all of this, it is that it is not very good to be on the priority list of the government because it will launch consultations. They are not doing consultations on Bill C-4. They do not need to. That issue has been debated plenty in Canada and part of the decision that was made on October 19, 2015, was to reject that approach to labour legislation, but here we are. The same laws are on the books.

Part of what some people wanted and certainly RCMP members imagined was that when we had a government that thought about labour issues differently, it would be good for them because they would get an appropriate bargaining framework that they did not trust the Conservatives to deliver on. Yet the legislation that the Liberals decided to move forward with was almost a carbon copy of some of the worst aspects of the previous Conservative bill. Here we are. It is sitting on the books. I will say one last time in case anyone missed it, Bill C-10, which was not a promise of the government, which it did not consult thoroughly on, has passed. Government members talk about not moving forward with anti-scab because we do not have a robust consultation process. There was no robust consultation process for Bill C-10 and the sell-out of Canadian aerospace workers, so where was the ethos of consultation on that one?

The lesson learned is, God forbid something is named a government priority. It is far better to simply be a friend. Then the Liberals will get it done. If it is a stated priority for election purposes, the sooner the bill passes the sooner they have to stop talking about it, which means the sooner they have to stop reaping whatever political benefits caused them to make the commitment in the first place. That is disappointing. I hope we can end this debate, get this passed, and move on to some of the other things they said are priorities. Some of them are good priorities. It would be nice to do something about them rather than nothing.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, let me very clear that we are here to speak about Bill C-4.

Our government is going to move forward with Bill C-4. We are going to repeal Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. I am very proud of that. I stand behind that.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we stand very clearly on our position on Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is aimed at repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I am proud of the bill. Certainly, my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, which is a very strong union riding, is very proud of our government for intending to repeal those bills. We are going forward with Bill C-4 to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. We are going to work with unions. We are going to restore respect for unions. We are going to treat unions with the respect they deserve.

One thing for certain that I noticed going door to door during the campaign was that unions were demoralized, felt disrespected, and that their morale was very low. We are going to restore that right across the country.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we are here to talk about Bill C-4.

We made a commitment during the election to repeal Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We are living up to that. We are restoring fairness and balance to our labour system. We are working with our unions. Going door to door during the election, I could not find anyone in favour of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, despite what member of the Conservative Party thought.

We are going to restore fairness and balance to the labour environment across Canada.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, one thing the party opposite has never really come to grips with is the culture of demoralizing, degrading, and not working with unions. One thing the Liberal Party is going to stand up for always is open and transparent dialogue. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are anti-union, and I am proud to support Bill C-4 to repeal those bills.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure speak in support of Bill C-4.

I rise today a proud member of my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, which is the oldest incorporated city in Canada and one of the most historic. It certainly is one of the most industrialized and strongest union cities in Canada.

I was proud to attend the National Day of Mourning at the Lily Lake Pavilion six months ago on behalf of my government. I toured the Frank and Ella Hatheway Labour Exhibit Centre and learned first hand what a proud labour and union history our city had.

I was the only elected official this year to attend the Labour Day parade. I attended, with pride, with the firefighters from IAFF Local 771 Saint John Firefighters, its 9-1-1 service, and respected and remembered the fallen firefighters.

However, it is not so much about being pro-union or anti-union. It is about treating unions with respect, having a dialogue, and transparency with unions, which is why I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-4. The bill would repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which I deem, as do people in my riding, particularly union members, union busting bills.

When I went door to door during the campaign, union leader after union leader spoke to me about these bills. They felt disrespected, that unions were degraded, demoralized, and they wanted change. This is why Bill C-4 is so important. It is the next phase of our government's attempt to reverse the degradation and demoralization of unions, which the Conservatives used in their decade of power.

This government was elected on a pledge to strength for the middle class, and we strongly believe that unions are a key partner in fighting that fight. My home town of Saint John, as I said, has a long history of unions and an industrial base. Unions help grow our economy, protect our workers, and they are there to produce a more vibrant community.

The former Conservative government neglected the middle class for more than a decade. Instead, the Conservatives focused their energy on attacking unions and dismantling them. This is a fact. The members opposite speak about how unions supported them. However, I cannot find a union or a union member in eastern Canada that supported Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Saint John's history is of a key shipbuilding and trading port, and the British Empire shows how trade unions can create a vibrant and strong community. Only with strong unions did Saint John thrive, and only with these things again can we make Canada's middle class, especially my constituents of Saint John—Rothesay, stronger than ever before.

My riding of Saint John—Rothesay is a proud union city. I will always be immensely proud to stand up for our unions, such as our local firefighters, local 771; our police union; IBEW and Matt Wayland; the Public Service Alliance, among others.

These unions are the backbone of our city and its economy, and I will always stand up for them. This is why I care passionately about Bill C-4. It is standing up for unions and the ordinary Canadians who reap the great things that unions provide.

Bill C-4 would repeal two laws that were not supported by evidence, were not wanted by either employees or unions, created additional and needless red tape, and were designed to pit employers against employees. We all know the best way to get anything done is to work together, to work with respect back and forth, and have open, transparent dialogue. This is why Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 must be repealed.

The Conservatives justified Bill C-377 by claiming there were complains by union members. Let us be clear. These complaints came from 0.002% of union members across Canada. It is a tiny portion of the four million Canadians who are members of unions. The Conservatives ignored the fact that federal and provincial laws already existed to ensure proper transparency about union spending to the proper people, the union members themselves.

This led to a massive administrative burden being placed on unions, as well as limited the ability of organized labour to effective collective bargain, reducing the ability of unions to help affect the landscape and help their members. Anything that hurts the ability of a union to collectively bargain for its members cannot be allowed to stand. An attack on collective bargaining is an attack on the union's ability to help its members, which hurts ordinary Canadians trying to get ahead.

Former Prime Minister Harper gave the best argument against the kinds of red tape that Bill C-377 created when, in January 2011, he said, “Cutting red tape is a most effective way to show that we are making government work for people, not the other way around”. He was right then, but then allowed red tape to hurt the union movement and stop it from doing good for ordinary, middle-class Canadians.

The Liberals could not justify supporting Bill C-377 then, and our resolve to help average Canadians who want to get ahead has not waned. Additionally, Bill C-525 was also something we could not support in 2014. It was without evidence then, and is certainly the same now. The government claimed the bill was the result of consultations with labour groups and employers, but there was no evidence ever given to show there were concerns about the way unions were certified. This bill was an answer in search of a problem, and a very bad answer.

Repealing Bill C-525 is also part of our government's commitment to evidence-based policy, listening to experts, and proper, thorough consultations. The mountain of evidence claimed by the Conservatives looks much more like a molehill: 6 complaints out of 4,000 Canada Industrial Relations Board decisions in the last 10 years. Actually, it is a molehill that was made to be bigger.

Bill C-525 is an anti-democratic attack. It eliminated card check certification and added an unnecessary second step for certification. It has become an invitation for employers to interfere with the democratic right of workers to choose representation. It has taken Canada away from a system of verification that worked quite well and has replaced it with one that is not fit for purpose.

Many local unions in my riding have talked to me about the new system of certification and the way the card check system is better, quicker, more efficient, fairer, and less open to employer interference, and I agree. It is right that we should listen to those in the community who have seen what the new system has done, the damage it is doing, and take what they say. We were elected to do and fight for ad back the middle class.

When I have gone door to door in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay and have talked to union members, I have yet to find a union or union member who supports Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

The first time I spoke in the House was on this bill. I am proud to speak on it again. It is an immense privilege to stand here and fight for my riding and my union members, and the people of Saint John—Rothesay. I want to acknowledge union leaders like Dave Stevens, Peter Anderson, Abel Leblanc, Pat Riley, Bob Davidson, Darlene Bambridge, Debbie Ferguson, Clint MacGorman, Paul Britt, Terry Ferguson, and many others in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, who stand strong and proud for unions. Unions built our middle class and the Liberal Party is here to support unions.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very eloquent speech. I could not have said it better myself, given that I was the sponsor for Bill C-525 in the previous Parliament. I want to thank him for his thoughtful approach.

I guess the House could take it that every private member's bill put forward by a Liberal MP is now a bill from their government and their Prime Minister. It is nice to know that Liberal MPs do not have any rights to put forward legislation on their behalf.

Based on what my colleague said in his speech, is the current legislation as it stands now not more in line and a reflection of the public opinion that he talked about in the Leger poll? Is Bill C-4 as proposed not completely offside with the wishes of union members?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, you would think after 12 years that I would finally break that old habit, and I have not. I apologize.

The hon. member made a populist case about why there should be elections, plain and simple, regardless of how many. However, as I understand it, Bill C-525 went from 35% of the cards being required to trigger an election, to 40%. If the hon. member is so proud of the Harper legislation and he condemns the idea that there would be a vote at only 35%, how does 40% suddenly meet all of his populist needs where the 35% did not?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to join in the debate. Having listened to some of the different comments that members have been making and given the broad strokes in which this discussion has been discussed, let us get back and talk about the actual provisions in the legislation.

I think it is important to talk about the role of unions in society more broadly, and I will be making comments about that in my speech as well, but let us first be clear about what we are actually substantively debating.

What the government proposes to do in Bill C-4 is to whole hog repeal two pieces of private members' legislation that were passed under the previous government: Bill C-525, with respect to guaranteeing a secret ballot in the context of certification in federally regulated areas, and Bill C-377, which is a bill about financial disclosure for unions.

We are talking about some fairly specific things. We are talking about secret ballots and we are talking about financial disclosure. I would posit that one can be in favour of secret ballots and financial disclosure and still very much believe in the important role that unions have played, and continue to play. I think we can have an honest conversation about the provisions in Bill C-4, agree or disagree, while still recognizing that there are some points of common ground insofar as there are also points of disagreement.

One of the first lines of attack we see from the present government on these two private members' bills, and it is quite striking that it is doing this, is to attack the very legitimacy of private members' legislation, at least as a vehicle for putting forward substantive ideas.

I would argue, as an individual member of Parliament who takes my rights and responsibilities very seriously, that we are sent here to represent our constituents individually and private members' business is the only vehicle we have, and it is based on a draw, depending on where our names line up, for putting forward bills that we personally believe are important and for having the opportunity to have those bills discussed and then voted upon.

It is not only legitimate, but it is valuable for members of Parliament to use those private members' bill opportunities in very substantive ways. With the exception of bills that spend money, private members' bills are allowed to, and should, cover a wide range of different important and substantive topics.

Members opposite know the process that exists for private members' legislation. Of course, there is less time allocated in the day for a private member's bill debate than there is for government bill debates, but there are no such restrictions upon the ability of parliamentary committees to study that legislation once it proceeds to committee. Indeed, when private members' legislation makes it to committee and it is debated at committee, committees can call many different kinds of witnesses. They can take the time they need to consult, to hear from a broad range of stakeholders. Also, if a bill is going to become law, it will have gone through that process in both the House and in the Senate, providing two different opportunities, again, for stakeholders to be engaged. That is in addition to any consultation that individual members of Parliament do or that the sponsor also does.

There is a process in place, and it is important to underline that other than private members' legislation, there is no channel for anyone other than the government to bring forward bills in this place. Wherever members stand on the bill, I say, let us stop this attack on the legitimacy of private members' business, because it hurts all of us when members across the way make the kinds of comments that we are hearing about private members' bills somehow not being a legitimate place to have important and substantive debates.

I want to talk a bit about the role of unions, from my perspective and I think, probably, from the perspective of my colleagues on this side of the House, as well. I believe, we believe, that unions have a very important role to play in our society, that they have had and continue to have an important role.

First, they have a role in advocacy. We know that many of the basic, accepted notions of workers' rights that we have that are now protected in law for all workers are things that were initially advocated for by unions. Unions have provided that general social advocacy on behalf of certain reforms that have been important and helpful for workers.

Unions have also provided advocacy at a collective bargaining level on behalf of a whole bargaining unit. That continues to be an important role that unions play. Also, they provide advocacy for individuals who may have grievances or challenges in the workplace and need the support of a broader group such as a union acting on their behalf to ensure their rights and interests are protected. This advocacy is an important function that unions have and continue to carry out, and this is something I think we would find broad agreement on in the House.

Perhaps a role of unions that gets less attention, but is still very important, is the way unions provide training, mentorship, and elements of social community to people within the workplace. Members of my extended family who have been members of unions have really benefited from the mentorship structures that exist in unions. Therefore, unions play an advocacy role as well as a community role, and they provide a lot of value when they play that role.

Unions can also help to instill a deeper sense of pride of vocation. For many of us work is not just a way to earn a living, but something we invest aspects of our identity in and we appreciate the dignity and value that comes to us through our opportunity to contribute to the work we do. Unions can help instill that sense of pride in work, and often they do that.

On our side of the House, certainly from my personal perspective, we would strongly affirm that unions have an important role to play.

It is perhaps also worth recognizing that unions come in different forms. Some of the functions I just described, whether it be community, training, or advocacy, can often happen in a different form in a non-unionized workplace as well. Therefore, I would not say there is one model that is necessarily better than another. It is up to individual workers to evaluate and consider what type of workplace model best reflects their interests.

That is why it is important to have a democratic model for deliberation about certification and for workers coming to those decisions, as well as having a truly democratic model for deliberation about which union. There is increasing diversity of union options out there. It is logical to regard that as a positive thing, when we have different kinds of union models that provide workers with some choice in the process of certification, such as which union, what kind of union, or perhaps no union at all, in terms of how they proceed with their certification. There is an important role for unions and it ought to be one in which those functions are fulfilled.

Unions are at their best when they respect the internal diversity of opinion, the rights of their members, and democratic principles in their activities. Many unions do that. Unions are at their best when they consider their work in the context of universal human solidarity, when they are invested in the needs and interests of their workers, as well as the unemployed, as well as the long-term well-being of the company that supports their activity. Unions are at their best as well when they work to encourage excellence in the workplace. That is very common. That is something many unions do.

We can have a conversation about the details of how unions operate from a place of respect for the role they have and continue to play, but also we need to dig into these specific provisions and, recognizing the role that unions play, ask what the best way is to maximize their success.

As I was reflecting on that I thought it would be worthwhile to draw on some opinion data. I found a survey that Leger did in 2013 with some really interesting data about the opinions of the general public, as well as the opinions of members of unions, about some of the different aspects of the legislation. It it important that we listen to individual union members who have bought into this model, see the value of the work their unions do, and who also may have specific opinions about the kind of structure under which it could operate. This is from 2013, but I suspect there has not been a radical change in the opinions of union members on these types of issues.

The first question that was asked was whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “It should be mandatory for unions from both the private and public sectors to publicly disclose detailed financial information on a regular basis” .

Members might be interested to know that 61% of union members in that sample completely agreed with the statement that unions of both the private and public sectors should publicly disclose detailed financial information on a regular basis, and 23% somewhat agreed, so of current unions members, over 80% either completely or somewhat agreed with the idea of public disclosure of financial information on a regular basis. If we are going to call some of these things “anti-union”, I think we should listen to what union members are saying and reflect on that feedback.

It was interesting to look through the full range of questions that the study asked. One of them was whether workers felt that their dues were being well spent. In terms of the numbers, 57% of unionized workers said they thought their dues were being well spent; 27% said they were not being well spent. Therefore, that is a positive number for unions. Unionized workers saying, yes, they see the value of their membership in unions, they see the value of the dues they are spending, but at the same time also saying that they see the importance of financial disclosure.

There has been some discussion of the use of union dues for certain kinds of political activities. It was interesting that 62% of unionized workers in this sample felt that making contributions to advocacy groups unrelated to workplace needs was something that they disagreed with. They did not want to see their dues used to fund advocacy groups unrelated to workplace needs. A full 77% of unionized workers said they did not want to see their dues being used to fund political parties.

That was some feedback. Workers are saying, yes, they see generally their dues being well spent, but they want to see that they are going to things related to workplace needs, not things unrelated to workplace needs, and that they see the value in public disclosure.

This one really stuck out for me, “A secret ballot vote should be required when forming or removing a union from a workplace.” Of current unionized workers, 62% completely agreed with that, and 24% somewhat agreed with that. According to this particular survey, 86% of current union members said they believed that a secret ballot should be required when forming a union in the workplace.

When I hear my colleagues across the way suggest that advocating for a secret ballot is somehow going against unionized workers, when well over 80% of unionized workers are telling a pollster that they want to have a secret ballot, there is obviously some dissidence there.

May I say, I wonder if that is why we hear so little discussion of the actual substantive provisions of the legislation. We hear members of the government saying that the old bills were anti-union and their new approach is eliminating those anti-union bills, without actually saying what the specific provisions in the bill were and whether those provisions in the bill accord with what union members are asking for. If we look at the numbers, it seems pretty clear that these things do accord with what union members are asking for.

When I spoke to the bill before, I talked about how one of the key arguments for a secret ballot is that a secret ballot provides an opportunity for prior deliberation. The card check system is one where members, seeking certification, may go around and get people to sign cards and then once a sufficient number of cards are signed, that is it, the union happens. However, when there is a secret ballot, there is an opportunity for discussion, for the employer and for those seeking certification to present arguments.

There was actually a poll question specifically about this issue of the process of deliberation. They were asked to agree or disagree with this statement, “During a union organizing drive, employees should be entitled to obtain information from both the union and the employer on the impact of workplace unionization”. Of unionized workers, 73% completely agreed with that and 24% somewhat agreed with that. A full 97% in this sample of current union members in Canada said that there should be an opportunity for the union as well as the employer to present information reflecting what their perspective is on the impact of unionization. These are some very telling numbers about the perspectives that union members have.

I want to conclude my discussion, of this poll at least, with reference to one additional question that asked for perspectives. They gave two options. One option was on whether unions are still as relevant today as they have ever been. The other option was on unions being needed and relevant at one time but whether today they are any longer necessary. There were 71 per cent of unionized workers who said that unions are still as relevant today as they have ever been.

A very large majority of unionized workers very much see the value and relevance of unions, and a majority of unionized workers believe that their dollars are being well spent. This is good news for unions in the present and in the future. However, at the same time, workers are saying that they want to have a secret ballot and that they appreciate the value of financial disclosure.

I think this is where we, as a House, need to be. We need to be listening to what workers are saying. We need to recognize what they are saying about the value of unions, for them, and for our society as a whole. We also need to recognize what they are saying about these very simple but important areas of having a proper process in place for certification, and also of ensuring that there is a proper mechanism in place for disclosure.

In the remaining time I have, I will come back to this issue of the secret ballot. It amazes me to hear colleagues in this House argue against the secret ballot. We are having a discussion about so-called electoral reform right now. I do not know if anyone has proposed in the conduct of these discussions that we should eliminate the secret ballot.

The idea of eliminating the secret ballot in our election system would be seen as totally ridiculous and would be very concerning to Canadians if anyone proposed it. However, for the purposes of union certification, it is like we are entering a completely different dimension. People who were elected by a secret ballot, who are very used to the principle of a secret ballot in every other kind of election, say it is not needed when it comes to certification.

The arguments we hear stretch credulity. For instance, they say that secret ballots provide a greater opportunity for employer intimidation. Did they miss the “secret” part of secret ballot? On what basis could it be argued that there is intimidation on a secret ballot?

Again, we do not hear the government arguing against the use of the secret ballot in federal elections because of the risk of intimidation. Obviously, not. That is exactly why we have a secret ballot, to eliminate the possibility of someone looking over another person's shoulder and saying that they should vote this way or that way.

Secret ballots also reflect something else. They reflect a fundamental right to privacy that every person should have with respect to their political opinions. Most of us here choose not to be all that private about our political opinions. However, Canadians have a right, if they wish, to not talk publicly about their views on certification within their workplace. Members might understand why not wanting to tip their hand one way or the other in terms of their views on certification would be a choice that some people would want to make.

If that is how they want to express their right to privacy, to vote in secret about certification, in elections or in any other cases, that is a fundamental function of the rights to privacy that we expect. People should be able to not expose their political opinions if they do not wish to do so.

In the context of the secret ballot, I talked about the importance of the process of deliberation, having an opportunity for debate without having a certification drive sneak up on people who are not aware of it or do not have an opportunity to have that conversation.

I will conclude by saying that this is an important bill, one on which we can and have had good debate. However, we should dig into the provisions. We should talk about the bill. I think we all accept that there is an important role for unions in society. We also need to listen to what unionized workers are telling us with regard to the specific provisions of the bill. Then we need to evaluate it accordingly.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this third reading debate on Bill C-4. This bill was tabled to kill Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were rammed through by the previous government.

I support this bill for many reasons. Today, I would particularly like to point out the lack of transparency and consultation that marked the passage of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In both cases, the previous government distorted the legislative process and made it completely unfair. Yet, these two bills made significant changes to Canada's labour laws.

Our government firmly believes in taking a fair and balanced approach to legislating on labour relations issues. It firmly believes in striking a balance between the rights and responsibilities of employers and those of employees.

Many organizations testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Many of them criticized the fact that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were drafted without proper consultation with unions, employers, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public. In his testimony before the committee, Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canada Labour Congress, indicated that these private members' bills represented a fundamental and dangerous attack on the rights and freedoms of working people in Canada to organize unions free from outside interference. He went on to say that the bills were developed without consultation with the labour movement. They threatened to polarize federal labour relations and fundamentally tip the balance between employers and unions.

Our government does not support an approach that does not include consultation, and that is why we need to repeal the amendments that these two bills made. They are unfair and also harmful to our economy. The reform of Canada's labour laws is far too complex and important of an undertaking to be taken lightly.

While drafting Bill C-4, we took the concerns of our provincial and territorial partners into account. That kind of constructive approach is the only appropriate way to go about changing the legislative framework that governs labour relations.

Bill C-4 will help restore fair and balanced labour relations and will ensure prosperity for Canadian workers and employers. Bills C-525 and C-377 were clearly very problematic.

For example, Bill C-377 was a direct attack on the collective bargaining process because it required unions to disclose detailed financial information about their activities, including information on strike funds, which gave employers an undue advantage over unions.

There was a reason why Michael Mazzuca, a representative of the Canadian Bar Association, told the committee that, because of its major concerns, the association fully supported the provisions of Bill C-4 that repealed those of Bill C-377. He also indicated that the latter bill was fundamentally flawed and triggered serious concerns from a privacy, constitutional law, and pension law perspective.

Bill C-525 attacked union certification and decertification. The former government's intentions were crystal clear: to make it harder for Canadian workers to organize. This measure, just like Bill C-377, gave employers an unfair advantage over workers. It is time to restore balance and fairness to a system that has been working for a long time.

Stable labour relations are crucial to moving our economy forward. It was high time to restore that stability because Bills C-525 and C-377 were adversely affecting the climate of labour relations and bargaining in Canada.

In committee, a number of people shared their concerns over the impact of these bills on privacy, their constitutionality, and the fact that they are seriously weakening the labour movement.

Let us not forget the important role that unions historically played in Canada. They have always stood for protecting labour rights and ensuring the development and prosperity of the middle class across the country. We owe many of our rights to labour unions. We are proud of them.

Bill C-4 will make things right again by restoring the balance of power between the parties. We made that commitment during the campaign and now I am proud to say we are honouring it.

If the former government had bothered to hold real consultations, if it had not been driven by ideological beliefs, and if it had done its homework, we would not have to clean up this mess today.

Fortunately, Bill C-4 will fix everything. I urge all members to give it their enthusiastic support. Canadian workers and employers will be glad for it.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. We need to consult with other unions. We need to consult with the provinces, particularly when seven provinces were against Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. We need to consult with the provinces as they look after a lot of our labour laws. Those are the types of people we need to consult with.

Also, unions are self-regulating. The federal government should not be dictating to them how they should be structured or how they operate. They are self-regulated, and that is the way they should be treated.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler for his speech, because he was able to identify the key aggravations in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These two bills stood out to me when they were debated here in the House.

On Bill C-525, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin said at the time that the legislation was put forward to deal with the mountain of grievances that arose year after year against union organizers. However, when the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee, we asked her just how high that mountain was. How many grievances had come in against union leaders over the past 10 years? There were two grievances against union organizers. It was not quite a mountain, but a misnomer from the get-go.

There was another thing that came forward, if we are going to change the labour code in this country. Does my colleague believe it has to be done through a tripartite process, through consultation and consensus with government, employers, and employees? We as a country have embraced that tripartite process. Does the member not agree that rather than using private members' legislation, we should do it through a tripartite process?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-377 was also introduced under the previous government. It was called unconstitutional by seven provinces and was opposed by a significant number of unions, police associations, federal privacy commissioners, and the Canadian Bar Association. It put unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining and made it more difficult for employees to unionize. It added unnecessary and redundant compliance requirements for financial disclosure, which were already addressed in the Canada Labour Code and in many provincial labour statutes.

Jerry Dias, president of Unifor Canada, Canada's largest private sector union, called it an attack on unions. Canada's largest public sector union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the bills were designed to weaken unions.

It is clear that both bills were counterproductive to a fair and balanced relationship between workers and employers. It comes as no surprise that repealing them was a priority of my party during last year's election campaign. Our commitment won the support of many Canadians. Consequently, repealing these two pieces of the previous government's labour legislation was a priority in the mandate letters of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

To honour our commitment, and to avoid excessive red tape while steps were being taken to repeal Bill C-377, the Minister of National Revenue waived reporting requirements for labour organizations in December 2015 for the 2016 fiscal period.

To repeal Bills C-377 and C-525, Bill C-4 was introduced to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before the introduction of both bills.

Bill C-4 would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove from all the acts the requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide annually to the Minister of National Revenue information returns containing specific figures that would be made available to the public.

The Government of Canada recognizes the important role unions play in protecting the rights of workers in this country and in helping the middle class prosper. To achieve a fair and balanced federal labour policy, we have to repeal the provisions enacted by Bills C-377 and C-525. I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

It is great to be back on Parliament Hill. I hope everyone had a great summer and time well spent with their families and loved ones.

Prior to the election, I was a member of United Steelworkers Local 4610 for over 12 years. Early on, as a teenager working in a unionized manufacturing facility, I was unaware of the role unions played for their members. As I matured and grew older, I quickly realized the great value of unions in protecting workers' rights. Today I am proud to rise in this chamber to talk about the role of the unions in the country and how Bill C-4 will reinstate a fair and balanced federal labour policy.

Unions are a fundamental element of Canada's social and economic fabric and are at the core of our middle class. They help create well-paying jobs, safe communities, and a prosperous economic environment. They set standards for working conditions and quality of life for working people.

Canada has a relatively high rate of unionization, with 30% of workers belonging to unions.

Union-negotiated wages and benefits are usually superior to what non-union workers receive. Higher wages foster a thriving middle class. Higher wages mean more money spent in our consumer-driven economy. Higher wages mean a healthier population.

Unions have been a driving force for economic equality and social rights in Canada, including pay equity for women, safer workplaces, and better pensions for retirement. These advantages are not restricted to union members. Indeed, when unions raise the bar, they raise it for every worker in Canada. The five-day work week, minimum wage, maternity and parental leave, vacation pay, and protection from discrimination: we owe them to the actions of unions.

I have worked in both non-union and union environments. To elaborate, with respect to safety, I remember working in a unionized environment, and the thoroughness of the orientation it provided on safety was superior to any place I had worked before. I had worked in non-unionized places, and although there was a lot of training on safety, the unionized places ensured the safety of their workers to the highest level I had seen.

When Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were presented under the previous government, they were perceived by many as an ideologically driven and unwarranted attack on unions and collective bargaining.

Bill C-525 was introduced in June 2013. The provisions contained in the bill were designed to make it harder for unions to be certified. It was proposed and enacted without consultation with relevant stakeholders, and because of that, a number of labour organizations and employers expressed their opposition to the bill.

Bill C-377 was also introduced under the previous government—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I have been saying from the beginning of my speech, we need to put mechanisms in place to ensure that all union organizations are being transparent. Bills C-377 and C-525 accomplished just that, and yet the government, with the support of the second opposition party, is doing away with them.

I hope that was brief enough. Clearly, some sort of coalition is forming against us right now, because those bills were important.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock for sharing her time with me. Clearly, it is much easier to say the name of her riding than to say Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I also want to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, who participated in last week's debate. They did an excellent job of pointing out the importance of the bills passed a few years ago by our government, specifically Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. They were very important bills.

The government seems to be saying that these bills are not as important because they are private members' bills. Today, the government is trying to make it seem that these bills are less important, even though the Liberals themselves have some bills of this nature on the table at present.

We should also applaud the contributions of former member Russ Hiebert and the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who is still with us. They sought to make the labour movement fairer, more transparent, and more democratic.

If Bill C-4 is passed, the government will be denying workers two fundamental rights. The first is union transparency, which is very important. Members pay union dues and must therefore have the opportunity to vote in a transparent process. That is what we believed at the time and what we still believe today. We also believe that unions need to be transparent, particularly with regard to the dues they receive.

Workers must be able to exercise their right to vote by secret ballot without fear of reprisal from their colleagues or superiors. We know that there have been instances of retaliation in the past. Intimidation occurs within the labour movement. That has always been the case and will likely always be the case.

These two rights are common sense and taken for granted. They should have the unanimous support of all members of the House, but they do not. The Liberal Party feels indebted, not to ordinary workers, but to big union bosses who obviously worked behind the scenes to help the current government get elected.

Whether they are members of a union or not, all Canadians have a vested interest in ensuring that labour groups are transparent with their members and with all Canadian taxpayers, since $4 billion in union dues are collected every year. As a result, unions are entitled to tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, such as Fondaction CSN and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ in Quebec. These funds are paid for by all Canadians.

We therefore believe, and rightly so in my opinion, that full transparency is needed when it comes to these funds and the taxes that are paid. That is why Bill C-377 was so necessary.

As our colleague pointed out last week, $500 million in taxpayers' money goes into these funds annually. That is a huge amount of money. The government opposite believes that requiring unions to make public any expenditures of $5,000 or more places a heavy administrative burden on them.

As members of Parliament, to get reimbursed for a taxi ride we are required to submit a receipt if the total is equal to or greater than $25. We have to substantiate our claims.

I think this government has a lot to learn from what happened in the past few months because by all accounts transparency was lacking. This government claims to be extremely transparent. However, we learned that the Minister of Health claimed $1,700 in expenses for her limousine, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change claimed $6,000 in expenses for a photo session, not to mention everything we learned last week about the moving expenses for key government employees, including employees of the Prime Minister. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars have been spent by a number of departments.

If it were not for the fact that transparency is mandatory in this Parliament, we would be none the wiser. It is therefore essential that the same level of transparency required of governments and elected members be required of unions and of big union bosses.

If I were a factory worker in La Pocatière, Montmagny, Rivière-du-Loup or l'Islet, which are four towns in my riding, I know that union dues would be deducted from my paycheque every week in order for the union to protect my interests. However, that money must be spent wisely.

Any government or organization must be transparent for its taxpayers or its members. We cannot stress this enough. We must ensure that all members of an organization have a full accounting of how their money is spent, because it is their money. As MPs, we manage taxpayers' money. Thus, the government must be transparent. It says it is, however, it is not even exercising its own prerogatives.

If this government believes that $5,000 is too low a threshold for a detailed accounting of expenditures, what amount does it believe is more appropriate? That is an excellent question because $4 billion in union dues is paid every year. Five thousand dollars is a minimum. That was our belief back then and that is what we continue to believe today. Does the government have a different minimum threshold?

It is important to remember that, as MPs, we have to report any expense of $25 or more. I do not see why a union should not have to do the same for expenses of $5,000 or more so everyone knows how people's union dues are being spent.

The government has to answer for how it spends taxpayer money, and charities also have to account for their spending to comply with Canadian law.

Any charity that supports a particular candidate or party during an election campaign runs the risk of being stripped of its special tax status under the Income Tax Act. Why should unions be exempt from similar neutrality and impartiality obligations?

The Liberals say they are all about evidence-based policy, but they often seem willing to turn a blind eye to union activities whenever it suits them.

We believe that Bill C-4 will destroy all the crucial measures we included in those bills. Transparency being a priority, union leaders must demonstrate the same degree of respect, integrity, and care as government and opposition MPs. As those in charge of managing taxpayer money, we must be transparent about how we spend it.

Bill C-4 gets rid of all that. Those two essential pieces of legislation worked very well together. I think they are necessary and should continue to be necessary. That is why I am going to vote against Bill C-4.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that this legislation is an attack on two previous bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

I find it interesting to hear my colleague, a former mayor of a major city in Canada, say that she respects unions. We all respect unions.

I would like our colleague to talk about her experience in her time in municipal government doing the proper process.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

The bill would reverse a number of pieces of legislation that made it easier for union members to have a fair say within their unions via a secret ballot. It also ensured that union leaders were accountable to their membership and taxpayers by having their financial statements disclosed, as they operate tax free. This is no different from political members of Parliament, MLAs, crown corporations, charities, and native reserves, which I now understand has been reversed as well.

I have heard much throughout this debate, from all parties. I heard some of the most disturbing comments last week from members, and again from one of the members today, calling this original legislation “backdoor”, “anti-union”, “an attack on labour unions”, “union busting”, and that we, as Conservatives, hate unions.

I not only find those comments absurd; I find them frankly offensive. Many of our members have worked with unions and many have belonged to unions. There are seven out of 10 provinces that have financial disclosure requirements. Union members, past and present, along with the general public, supported disclosure, by over 80% in polling data when the bills were first introduced in 2013. When did accountability and transparency become so abhorrent to the government?

I have personally worked with numerous union leaders, union executives, and union organizations over many years. We did not always agree on every topic, but we still worked together. We still resolved issues. We still respected each other's opinions. More important, we respected each other's differences. In past elections, I have been publicly endorsed by unions, and even in this past federal election, as a Conservative, I was endorsed by a union.

The reason I say this is to allow some balanced perspective to enter into this debate. Bill C-377, passed by the previous government, added an additional tool of confidence and transparency for workers, requiring unions to disclose the way that they spent their money. It did not regulate how unions could spend their money, nor did it regulate any other activity. It simply helped to give Canadians a more open and transparent picture.

Bill C-525, also passed by the former government, helped strengthen the rights of union members. It gave them the power to vote by secret ballot.

However, this bill, Bill C-4, would take those rights away from union workers. It begs the question of why a government, which insists that it is all about openness and transparency, is so insistent on taking away workers' rights.

I have witnessed the certification of manufacturing plants. I can assure members that this is not an easy nor a smooth process. I have personally witnessed the intimidation by both union workers and management personnel. A secret ballot lets an individual's true opinion be heard without fear of repercussions. By not allowing a secret ballot, we are putting workers, on both sides of the issue, in a very awkward and intimidating situation.

Let us never forget that all parties must work together to create a healthy and productive working environment. Jobs need to be created; they need to be sustained. Opportunities need to be provided for workers, and industry sectors need to grow. It is a symbiotic relationship, one that cannot survive without the other.

Canadians across this country have the democratic right to vote for their elected representatives by secret ballot. Abolishing the secret ballot is one of the most undemocratic actions that a government can take, and this is exactly what would happen with this legislation. A government cannot and should not pick and choose who gets the right to a democratic process. However, the current government is continuing down this path.

Not only are we seeing the lack of democratic process through Bill C-4, but we are seeing this play out in communities across this country with the so-called consultation on electoral reform. There is an overwhelming desire by the general public to have a referendum. We have seen it over and over again, in dozens of polls, in letters, newspaper articles, and in petitions across this country. People want a say in the way that they elect their political representatives. To have a few people gathered at town halls is not representative of the people's voice. It is one element to gather information. However, we cannot base our decisions solely on a few people showing up at a town hall.

By note, there were about 70 people in my riding who came to a town hall: the EDAs, the last candidate of record for the Liberals, some of their friends, and a very small number of people who were non-partisan. That does not represent the majority. However, I did send out a questionnaire to every household in my riding to ask about electoral reform, as well as having an online questionnaire. Overwhelmingly, the people want a referendum. They want a say in how they elect their representatives. They do not want politicians deciding for them.

Another funny little anecdote is that the issue of electoral reform was at the bottom of their concerns. People are concerned about health care, jobs, rising taxes, and a litany of other things. It certainly is not electoral reform.

This tells us many things, and it gives us an indication of what the current government thinks of openness, transparency, and accountability. People want a referendum on electoral reform and for workers to have a right to a secret ballot. Whether they use it is up to them, but they should have that right. Conservatives value transparency, accountability, and democracy, which is why we introduced those pieces of legislation in the first place. Bill C-4 is the complete opposite of transparency, accountability, and democracy. Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-4.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the question, one thing that came to mind is the fact that throughout this entire debate, outside of the Conservative Party, I have not received one phone call, email, or letter, at least to the best that I can recall, which was critical of Bill C-4.

The same cannot be said about the private members' bills. Bill C-525 dealt with the card check system, about which the Conservatives would ultimately say it should be the freedom of the vote and that the card check system is not needed. Many members of the union movement in particular thought it was a way to minimize the growth of unions, and even destabilize other unions currently in place.

Bill C-377 dealt with financial matters, where unions as a group were targeted. For what reasons? I have commented extensively on this. I believe there was a lot of negative political motivation that ultimately put politics and wedge issues ahead of Canada's best interests in terms of labour relations in our country.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the very important role of unions in protecting labour rights across Canada.

I have personally met with the representatives of a number of labour organizations since I took office. They all agree that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 weaken the Canadian labour movement and hinder the establishment of productive labour relations between employers and employees. The previous government hindered these relations, and our government is determined to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Can my colleague quickly explain to me once more what Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 imposed on unions and workers?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct some of the facts.

Basically, when the previous government passed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, there were major consultations, a word I believe the current government loves to hear all the time. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance examined the issue, as did the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Although no one is accusing the government of being logical, here is the question. What is the motivation behind the legislation? I believe an observer would say it is to protect the union bosses. The irony is that those union leaders are themselves elected by secret ballot. Does it make sense that union leaders be elected by secret ballot if secret ballots are not allowed for union certification votes? That is the question, and hopefully we can hear some logical answers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as many will know, when there is an opportunity to talk about the issue of labour relations in Canada, as much as possible people can count on the fact that I love to be able to share my thoughts on what I believe is a very important issue. It is an important issue not only for me but also for the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus as a whole. That is very clearly demonstrated in the degree to which labour relations has been made a parliamentary priority by the government.

I can recall having discussions about labour-related legislation prior to our being in government, when we discussed two private members' bills. I will comment on that because at times it was fairly emotional for my colleagues opposite when we indicated the manner in which the past government, the Harper government, had changed the labour laws.

One of the discussions that took place had to do with the sense of unfairness about what the Conservative government was doing at the time in introducing private members' legislation. Therefore, no one should be surprised that the new government, led by our current Prime Minister, has made a fairly bold statement that we want to establish a new attitude and a new relationship between labour and management, given the harm caused by the former government. It did not take long for our new government and the Prime Minister to bring forward legislation that will ultimately assists in setting the stage.

Bill C-4 is a genuine and effective attempt to repeal legislation that was previously introduced in the House by private members. I was there during the debate when those private members' bills were brought forward to fulfill what we believed at the time was the Conservative Harper government's agenda with respect to labour relations.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to walk on picket lines and to support workers. I have had opportunity to meet with management groups to talk about labour relations. I understand the importance of balance. At one point, I was even the labour critic in the Province of Manitoba. I understand how important it is that there be balance, because balance is what provides for an effective bargaining process.

Although we have only held the reins of power here at the national level for a relatively few months, I believe we have made significant strides forward. I was really encouraged by our ministries here today that were so effective in sending the message to Canada Post and the union not to expect the current government to jump in with back-to-work legislation.

The government's expectation is that the stakeholders in this case, the management and the union, will be able to negotiate in good faith. I believe that in good part they have understood that the government wants to see that different attitude toward negotiations and that it believes it is in their best interest, both management and the labour side of Canada Post, to reach a negotiated agreement. In essence, that is what we have witnessed. When there is an opportunity for a negotiated agreement between the stakeholders, I believe this is what we should be striving for at all times. I do not believe the previous government really appreciated that fact.

Hansard will clearly demonstrate that I would comment back then that everyone knew at the time that the government of the day would institute back-to-work legislation virtually immediately if a strike took place. How did that influence negotiations? It was not just in respect of Canada Post. Indeed, the government needs, as much as possible, to respect and allow for negotiations in good faith. It does not necessarily mean that we are limited. We act in the best interests of Canadians at all times.

The former government did not recognize the importance of labour harmony. That is one of the reasons why we, as a government, had to deal with labour legislation right from the get-go. That is exactly what our Prime Minister and our government did with the introduction of Bill C-4. First reading was back in January and the bill was brought forward for second reading in February.

What was the Conservative Party's official response? The Government of Canada said that Bill C-4 was a priority piece of legislation and that we should debate it. Back then, the Conservatives did not think twice. They brought forward an amendment to the legislation. The amendment read:

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

Right away, the Conservative Party attempted to reject Bill C-4. It did that because it prefers those private members' bills, no matter who was offended by them. I am very proud that the government continued to push forward boldly with the legislation, understandably so, and we saw it go to committee.

When we deal with bills like C-525, C-377, and C-4, they go to committee and we get all sorts of different types of presentations on them. However, in this case, both labour and management argued that the approach established by Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 set a dangerous precedent for labour relations and law reform, wherein the tripartite consultation process—referring to employer, union, and government—had traditionally been considered as essential by the stakeholder to maintaining a workable labour-management balance.

We saw both sides make that claim. Many members in the Liberal caucus have raised that issue. I listened to my colleague from Atlantic Canada, when he was the critic for labour, stand up many times and articulate how important that balance was and how we had to respect the importance of the stakeholders. That was one of the fundamental flaws with the private members' bills that were being advanced at the time, which we are repealing through this legislation.

We have an hour of private members' business every day, almost without exception. There was substantive labour legislation. When changes are made to labour legislation, there is an obligation to take those stakeholders, the labour and management sides, and bring them to the table and sit down with them to get a good understanding of where consensus could actually to built. That allows the government to be involved in this well-established process that has proven to be fairly effective in Canada. Other jurisdictions look to Canada to see how we are able to provide balance between labour and management, and the different stakeholders.

That is something that is so critical, yet both of those private members' bills did not go through that process. In fact, if we had applied the same rules of procedure to Bill C-4 as we did to the two private members' bills, then we would not be debating the bill right now. The bill would have been limited in terms of the amount of time allowed for debate.

Members know full well that a private member's bill is treated quite differently than a government initiative or government legislation. There is more debate time for government bills. There is a different process, whether it is the lead-up, the making of the legislation, ensuring that there is that consultation and that the consensus is built between and labour management, all the way to the second reading, third reading, report stage, and so forth.

There are time limits that are instituted in our rules to deal with private members' bills. That is why many thought it was intentional on the part of the Harper government to have private members bring legislation in through the back door. We have made reference to that in the past. Many on the other side get very upset or are offended when we talk about that back door approach, but they need to recognize that there is a difference in the process. That offended both labour and management stakeholders. At the time, the Harper government completely ignored that.

Now we are going through the process. What was Bill C-525? It was the Employees' Voting Rights Act. It was introduced in the House of Commons as a private member's bill on June 5, 2013, by the Conservative member for Red Deer—Lacombe. The bill received royal assent on December 16, 2014, and ultimately came into force on June 16, 2015. It suggested that the card check certification model, which we believe is quicker, more efficient, and more likely to be free of employer interference, was something the Conservative Party adamantly disagreed with. It articulated that it needed to be gotten rid of.

However, it did not go through the process. The private member, heavily supported by the government, brought forward that piece of legislation and it offended a great number of people, not only union personnel.

Then Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), was introduced in the House of Commons on December 5, 2011, again by a Conservative member. The bill ultimately did pass on December 12, 2012. On June 26, 2013, amendments were made to the bill in the Senate and it was referred back to the House of Commons for review; however, the bill was restored back to its original version. Keep in mind, that was a majority Conservative Senate. Even the Senate recognized the imbalances being caused by this piece of legislation, but the Harper government used its majority to kick it back. Ultimately it was accepted and then put into force after royal assent in June 2015 and took effect in December 2015.

It is no wonder we have made this a high priority for this government. We heard some criticisms at the time about Bill C-377. That it could upset the existing labour relations balance between unions and employers was a comment we heard continuously, whether it was through debates or at the committee stage. That union financial disclosure was already addressed in the Canada Labour Code and in many provincial labour statutes was also something that was raised on many occasions, as well as why the Conservative government was singling out unions. What was the driving factor behind the Conservatives doing that?

It must be pointed out that the bill is discriminatory against unions and ignores other types of organizations such as professional associations, which also receive favourable treatment under taxation law. The bill would invade the privacy of labour organizations and their members.

It is interesting to note that the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees launched a constitutional challenge to Bill C-377. I understand that challenge is now in abeyance until we see what takes place with Bill C-4. There were a great many concerns dealing with privacy. Even the Canadian Bar Association and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner provided comments to that effect. The CBA suggested that the bill may be subject to legal challenges on those grounds alone.

It is amazing the number of provinces that voiced opposition to Bill C-377. A majority of the provinces also criticized the bill for potentially crossing over and destabilizing the labour relations environment. This is where I started my discussion. When we talk about Bill C-4, it is all about righting a wrong. It is restoring a sense of fairness and balance to our labour laws and that is of the utmost importance.

The Conservative government lost touch with Canadians on labour issues, as it lost touch on many different issues with Canadians. Bill C-4 is a good bill and should be supported by all members because it brings back and restores balance to labour relations.

Canada Labour Code

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the components in Bill C-4 in repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is that union financial disclosure is already addressed in Canada's labour code and many provincial labour statutes. Therefore, many of the provisions contained in Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were actually unnecessary. Also, the bill targeted only unions and not professional organizations.

With regard to the construction industry, there is a very healthy collective bargaining process that takes place in Ontario between the construction unions and their counterparties, and it has allowed the province to grow and prosper.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 seeks to address two real issues that were brought in by the previous government on Bills C-377 and C-525, which tilted the balance that was in place away from unions. That is the first step we have adopted to address within our labour relations area.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Friday.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud and fortunate to stand here at third reading to support our government in moving forward this important piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would repeal Bills C-377 and C-525.

I spoke to this bill earlier, but I wanted to share my thoughts on Bill C-4 again, because I believe strongly in working to create a prosperous Canada, one in which the middle class and those looking to join it can grow and succeed. It was something I campaigned on last year and was a key plank in our government's election platform.

The two bills Bill C-4 seeks to repeal undermine labour unions and labour relations in our country, and in so doing, weaken our middle class.

Our government has an unwavering commitment to the middle class through initiatives like the Canada child benefit, which now sees nine out of ten Canadian families receiving higher monthly and tax-free benefits of approximately $2,300 a year; our middle-class tax cut, which reduced taxes for over nine million Canadians and will provide, over the next five years, approximately $20 billion in tax relief for Canadians; and recently, an historic agreement the Minister of Finance reached collaboratively with his provincial colleagues to expand and strengthen the Canada pension plan.

Our government is working to strengthen Canada's economy and to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed.

When I last spoke to Bill C-4, I talked about the importance of the bill in restoring a clear and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. I also talked about the fact that both my parents were union members. It was through the labour movement and its fight for fair wages and benefits that our family prospered in Canada. Frankly, it is one of the reasons I have the privilege to stand and speak in this House today.

I would like to focus my comments today on my personal connection to labour unions and their importance in helping create and sustain a strong middle class. However, before I do, I should probably provide some context and briefly explain the two bills that are to be repealed.

Bill C-377, which received royal assent in June 2015 and came into force at the end of 2015, created unnecessary red tape for unions and put workers at a disadvantage during the collective bargaining process. Bill C-525, which came into force on June 16, 2016, made it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified.

Both bills diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement, are counterproductive to a positive working relationship between employees and employers, and negatively impact the growth and prosperity of Canada's middle class.

The two bills Bill C-4 seeks to repeal were ideologically driven, not fact, and were aimed at undermining the effectiveness of labour unions across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

One bill, Bill C-377, places onerous and unfair reporting obligations solely on labour and not on any other organizations, be it professional or otherwise. The other bill, Bill C-525, changes the way unions are certified and decertified, making it harder for workers to organize.

There was no compelling need to make it harder on the labour movement and no sound economic argument for the Conservative changes to the Labour Code. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

Given the essential role unions play in fostering and maintaining a prosperous middle class and in protecting the rights of workers, needlessly upsetting the labour market relations system that has contributed significantly to the overall Canadian economy makes little economic sense.

I said that I would be focusing my comments on a personal connection to the labour movement. Those members who know me know that I am an economist and a former corporate and government debt analyst who worked on Wall Street and Bay Street for nearly 25 years. People might ask themselves why I would be such a strong proponent of Bill C-4. It is because professionally and personally I recognize the importance of balance in Canada's labour system not only in allowing workers to make free and informed decisions but in giving employers a degree of certainty and access to a skilled workforce.

If we want to see an example of the labour system working in balance, we can look no further than the recent negotiations between General Motors and Unifor. Through a transparent collective bargaining process, both sides have come to a tentative agreement that seeks to achieve the best interests of both parties: business and labour.

I will quote Jerry Dias, Unifor's national president, who stated:

“This framework puts into motion what will be a historic agreement to secure a future for our members, for our communities and for the auto industry in Canada,” said Unifor National President Jerry Dias, who led the negotiations.

We must always ensure that labour and business can bargain in an open and balanced process. The bills that are repealed in Bill C-4 tilted that balance and it was wrong.

In my constituency of Vaughan—Woodbridge, I see how a fair and balanced labour system allows LiUNA and the carpenters' union to work with their partners, helping to ensure the availability of an educated and skilled labour force. That collaboration has played a large role in the phenomenal growth in enterprises in the city I call home, Vaughan, throughout the GTA, and, frankly, all of Canada.

Over the summer, I attended a LiUNA industry awareness event at its training facility in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, where I saw first hand the training programs that LiUNA offers its members. LiUNA and its partners continue to train successive generations of workers who make Ontario a strong province and a beautiful place to call home. We must remember that unions like LiUNA continue to advocate for better health and safety conditions and strengthen pensions, which allow for a strong, prosperous, and growing middle class.

On a personal level, I also appreciate the importance of unions and a fair and balanced labour relations system. I was raised on the northwest coast of Canada in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, one of three boys, and both of my parents were union members. My father was a tradesperson, a carpenter and sheet metal worker. My mother, who, like my father, immigrated from Italy, worked in a fish processing plant. My parents came to Canada to build a better life and they brought with them the only asset they had: a work ethic and desire to build better lives for their family. With their union jobs, with benefits, good wages, and a safe environment, their aspirations for their family came true.

My parents instilled in me a very strong work ethic. Certainly those who know me, know I have carried that ethic with me proudly my entire life. They also instilled in me a very real understanding of the importance of unions and what decent wages and benefits meant to families.

In high school and while studying at university, I was a union member, working at the fish cannery, the Prince Rupert grain elevators and a pulp mill during the summers to help pay for my education. The work was not easy and the pay was not exorbitant, but it was a fair and decent wage. Because of the rules and oversight that unions helped to bring about, dangerous work environments were made safer.

Unions and their members are one of the backbones of the middle class in Canada. Union jobs enabled my immigrant parents to join the middle class. They allowed me the opportunity to pursue a higher education and, ultimately, with much happiness and privilege, it led me here to stand before the House of Commons.

I want to reiterate my full support for Bill C-4, our government's efforts to restore a fair and balanced labour relations system, and reaffirm my commitment to working toward creating and maintaining a prosperous Canada, one in which the middle class and those looking to join it can grow and succeed.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk about Bill C-4.

Its purpose, of course, is to repeal the provisions enacted by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In other words, Bill C-4 aims to restore fairness and balance to labour relations. Throughout this process, there are some who worried about transparency. In fact, they claim that Bill C-4 attacks the transparency to which our government has committed itself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All in this House know that our government is a champion for transparency. We are a government that is transparent, honest, and accountable to Canadians. We adhere to the most stringent ethical standards.

If we are talking about transparency, it is because this issue is of particular concern with regard to Bill C-377. Some think that the legislation was necessary to improve the financial transparency of unions. They say that it was required to guarantee public access to information on union expenses.

However, our government strongly believes that they are mistaken. Rather than improving transparency, Bill C-377 created additional privacy issues. Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament by the previous government despite loud opposition from many different groups, including Conservative and Liberal senators, constitutional experts, and certain organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association.

The previous government refused to listen to anyone, which is precisely why they are the previous government. We do things differently. We listen, and our efforts to improve labour relations in Canada were applauded by key stakeholders. The Public Service Alliance of Canada was pleased that our government tabled legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which this union believed was designed to weaken unions, was unconstitutional, and was a violation of privacy rights.

Canada's Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has expressed concerns with Bill C-377. In his view, publicly listing specific individuals' political and lobbying activities, as well as education, training, and conference activities, in accordance with Bill C-377 is overreaching.

Recently, he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, also known as HUMA.

I will take this opportunity to advise the House that I am splitting my time with the hon. and learned member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

If I may quote Monsieur Therrien from that committee, he said:

My role is to advise parliamentarians on the consequences that legislative measures can have on privacy. I do not have an opinion on the activities of labour organizations, specifically, but, like my predecessor, I have maintained all along that the provisions contained in Bill C-377 and its previous incarnations, went too far by imposing a public disclosure requirement. They were unreasonable and infringed on privacy rights.

Mr. Therrien continued as follows:

....transparency is not an end unto itself; it cannot be an absolute objective to the exclusion of other considerations....Transparency efforts must be carefully balanced with the need to protect the personal information of individuals.

I could not agree more.

Protecting personal information is something that Bill C-377 simply does not do.

To provide my hon. colleagues with more context, this legislation amended the Income Tax Act to require unions to provide the Minister of National Revenue with detailed information on their finances. More specifically, Bill C-377 forces labour organizations and labour trusts, including those under provincial jurisdiction, to provide information returns. These returns would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website.

Bill C-377 requires this information to include financial statements stating the total of all transactions, including certain transactions over $5,000 listed separately. These could include statements on their assets, debts, and expenses, and the salaries of certain individuals.

As if this were not enough, unions must also provide details on the time spent by certain individuals on political and lobbying activities and activities not related to labour relations. Worse still is that failure to comply with reporting requirements is considered an offence subject to a fine of $1,000 for each day of non-compliance, up to $25,000 per year.

Let me state clearly that Bill C-377 does nothing to add to the transparency of a union's affairs, and the former government knows this well.

To begin with, were this legislation to remain in place, employers would have access to a union's financial information, but the opposite would not be the case. In the collective bargaining process, unions would clearly be put at a disadvantage. For example, in the case of a work stoppage, an employer would know exactly how much money the union had in its strike fund, so it would know how long the union could hold out in the event of a strike. All the employer would have to do is wait until the strike fund was exhausted. That is unfair, unbalanced, and unreasonable. The union would be completely stripped of one of its key bargaining levers.

In addition, the strict disclosure requirements apply only to labour organizations and labour trusts and do not affect other groups that also receive beneficial tax treatment under the Income Tax Act.

This practice discriminates against unions and upsets the balance of labour relations across this country.

Lastly, provisions are already in place requiring unions to fulfill their financial reporting responsibilities. For example, section 110 of the Canada Labour Code requires unions and employer organizations to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge. There are similar provisions in most provincial labour relations legislation. Bill C-377 does nothing to add to this regulatory regime.

The reality is that the vast majority of unions already make their financial statements available to their members. These documents generally contain aggregated financial information and seem to meet the intended objective without it being necessary to name specific names. In other words, it protects privacy. Instead of promoting true transparency, Bill C-377 infringes on the right to privacy.

We should not force unions to provide detailed information on their finances. That is why steps have already been taken by the Minister of National Revenue to remove these obligations. As a result, during the repeal process, unions and other stakeholders affected by the bill are not required to submit detailed tracking of their activities for fiscal year 2016.

Balance is key. We need to be transparent, but we also need to respect privacy. Balance needs to be restored in relations between employees and employers. To that end, I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-4.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her contribution today. We understand that she comes from a perspective based on experience, and it is great to hear her point of view.

I have a very quick question. In her opinion, which bill put the labour movement back further, Bill C-377 or Bill C-525?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, and for his offer to allow me to comment on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 with the lens that they were simply mean-spirited, anti-union legislation that did nothing on a number of levels.

First let me talk about Bill C-377. My comment there is that the previous government would continually say “democracy, transparency, accountability”, and it would repeat that. Conservatives were trying to insinuate that somehow there is no democracy, no accountability, no transparency within the union movement and those associations. That is simply not true. If anyone has been part of a union or an association, they will understand the requirements that are needed to be shared with members and to file a report. It was an onerous reporting that added a lot of work and expense both on employers, as the member heard in my comments, and on the unions.

I have a quick comment around Bill C-525, which was a solution to a problem that did not exist. We heard that over and over at committee. We heard it from employers. We heard it from unions. It became very clear when we heard it from the experts, both from a previous chair of a commission that reviewed the Canada Labour Code, as well as from professors and experts within labour relations. It was simply there to make it harder to unionize and easier to decertify, and that certainly was the MO of the previous government.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-4.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister as well as the government on following through with one of their election promises.

New Democrats vigorously opposed the former Conservative government's attempt to restrict the rights of unions, and to change the rules governing labour relations under the guise of increased transparency. These bills were designed to weaken unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting requirements on them and by making it more difficult for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to join unions.

Allow me to recap the two bills that Bill C-4 would repeal.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary and discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. It was pushed through Parliament by the Conservatives despite widespread opposition from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, the NHL Players' Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry, among others.

Bill C-525 was a private member's bill supported by the Conservatives. It was designed to make it harder for workers to unionize and easier for unions to be decertified. The labour law changes were made without any evidence of a problem with the previous system of union certification.

It is my hope that the bill before us will receive swift passage so that the restrictions and the risks brought by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will cease to exist.

I had the privilege of hearing from many stakeholders during the committee hearings, both unions and employers, on the bill, and I am pleased to have opportunity today to quote at length some of the testimony we heard last spring. Much of which we heard at the committee from expert witnesses describes the problems with these two pieces of legislation in a knowledgeable and straightforward way, and in plain language that makes it really easy to see why these bills should be repealed.

Tony Fanelli, representing the construction and contract maintenance industry employers, explained why he opposed these onerous disclosure and reporting requirements of Bill C-377. He said:

If all trust funds, all training funds, and virtually every fund that would be connected to a union are subject to public exposure, our competition would clearly understand over time how those monies go into training and how we do business. In the construction industry, training and development is a key component to the success of projects we build [and bid on]. The staff either make or break an employer. We saw this legislation would open the door for the non-union to come in, just as I mentioned.

On top of that are the reporting requirements, the reporting responsibilities, that would come out of this. When we did some of the preliminary audits on the cost of doing this, it was just prohibitive.

And these are a group of large employers.

He continued:

It would happen not only with employers like us, the people I represent, the bigger employers in Canada, but across every employer association in every jurisdiction in this country. That's the reason we're opposed.

Mr. Fanelli also said:

If the Construction Labour Relations association of Alberta or the Industrial Contractors Association of Canada are held to be a labour trust and have to make the reports and returns required by Bill C-377, then both our confidentiality and our bargaining strategies are laid open.

This cannot be good for labour relations or good for either party in the labour relations continuum. I've been a labour relations practitioner in Canada for nearly 40 years. During that time there have never been any issues arising in respect of this subject. If this hasn't been an issue in the past, what is going to be gained by such significant public disclosure?

He went on to say:

We are also responsible for the privacy of our employees, and the legislation compels us to decide which law we breach: the Income Tax Act or the various provincial and federal privacy laws...it might be different if there were some wrong or right in this area, but there simply isn't. The unionized contractors in Canada see no obvious value in any part of Bill C-377, and therefore support the repeal of that legislation under the bill being considered today....

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities also had the opportunity to hear from some eminent labour relations experts and practitioners. Andrew Sims was the vice-chair of the 1996 task force to review the Canada Labour Code. He gave an enlightening presentation and had this to say about both bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525:

It's a fairly strong expression of views, but it is not simply my personal experience. It is founded on the last 30-year—and I think the most significant 30 years—review of the Canada code, and the people whose laws will be affected.

In my view, the two bills that are repealed by Bill C-4...both had the air of one side seeking political intervention for more ideological, economic, or relationship reasons, and they have corroded the view that legislative reform at the federal sector is based on the tripartite model.

To the oft cited but erroneous comparison of a secret ballot forum to form a union to an individual's vote during a democratic election, here is what another expert witness, Sara Slinn, associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, had to say about Bill C-525:

...there is a faulty political election analogy at work here. Mandatory vote supporters commonly rely on a political election analogy founded on the view that certification votes are analogous to political campaigns and elections. The attraction of this argument is understandable, appealing as it does to ideas of free speech and informed choice and workplace democracy, but it's a false analogy.

The nature of union representation is not analogous to government power or political representation, and as a result, the nature of decision-making in a union vote is not analogous to that in a political election. First, the nature of the decision is [totally] different. Certification doesn't transform the employment relationship. It simply introduces the union as the employee's agent for the limited purpose of bargaining and administering any collective agreement that the union may be able to negotiate. The employer's overriding economic authority over employees continues in any event.

Secondly, there is no non-representation outcome possible in the political context. In political elections citizens vote between two or more possible representatives. There is no option to be unrepresented, so...if union representation elections were to be analogous to political elections, then it would be a vote among different collective employer representatives with no option for non-representation. That's simply not the system that we have anywhere in Canada.

Professor Slinn also addressed the issue of card check versus secret ballot votes for union certification. She stated:

...in terms of cards being a reliable measure of employee support, it's often contended that votes more accurately indicate employees' desire for union representation than cards, suggesting that card-based certification fosters union misconduct to compel employees to sign cards. Although this is possible, there is no evidence, either in academic studies or in the case law from jurisdictions that use this procedure, that it is a significant or a widespread problem. Anecdote isn't evidence, and certainly it shouldn't be a compelling basis for legislative change in the face of a lot of academic research finding that mandatory vote systems have negative effects on labour relations and that employer interference in certification is indeed a significant and widespread problem.

Another effect of Bill C-525 is the increased difficulty that employees would face when trying to form a union. Despite the Conservatives' denial, it is clear that mandatory voting procedures, as set out in Bill C-525, would allow more opportunity for employers to influence the outcomes of certification drives. I will quote Professor Slinn again, as follows:

In every case, in a vote-based procedure, the employer is notified by the labour board that a certification application has been made.... In most jurisdictions in Canada, in all but two, there is a deadline for that vote. It's between five and 10 working days. Under the Canada Labour Code, there is no deadline for that vote.

This provides ample time for employers to engage in anti-union campaigns.

She goes on to say:

...there's quite a bit of research on delay in the vote process. Representation votes, by requiring a vote in addition to submitting evidence, necessarily result in a longer certification procedure. It has been found that it significantly reduces the likelihood of certification where there's either no time limit—as is currently the case under the Canada Labour Code and other federal legislation....

These studies concluded that a combination of enforced statutory time limits and expedited hearings for unfair labour practices was necessary to satisfactorily offset these negative effects. Neither of these are currently available.

Professor Slinn noted that this delay would be a real concern under the current provisions and that passing Bill C-4 would help in part to address the issue.

In terms of employer interference, Professor Slinn noted that the vote-based procedure gives employers a substantial opportunity to seek to defeat the organizing attempt. There are numerous studies showing this is not only widespread but effective. A large percentage of managers surveyed in some of these studies admit to engaging in what they believe to be illegal, unfair labour practices to avoid union representation.

Survey evidence has also found in Canada that non-union employees expect employer retaliation and expect anti-union conduct by employers. Research at UBC has found that Canadian employers are no less anti-union in their attitudes toward unions than U.S. managers.

Professor Slinn found that Bill C-4 amendments reversing the Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 changes, particularly to the representation procedures, are a change that better protects employees' decision-making about collective representation.

Some of the aforementioned concerns about Bill C-525 were also echoed by Hassan Yussuff from the Canadian Labour Congress. He said:

If the board is uncertain about whether or not there is support for a union, the board itself can order a vote. Of course, on many occasions when there has been a vote, the board has found that employers have truly interfered with the workers' ability to choose the union....

Why would an employer care if the workers want to join the union? If it's their free democratic and constitutional right in this country, why would employers want to interfere in it other than the fact that if you do have a vote, it gives the employer time to use all kinds of tactics during the time the vote has been ordered? I could list some of the companies that clearly said they were going to close the facility, or cut people's salaries, or lay people off. Of course, ultimately it changed the workers' ability to truly exercise their free choice.

It was abundantly clear from the testimony of respected individuals and experts that Bill C-4 is a good first step. However, we are disappointed that some of the major actions were missing from the bill. The government has intimated that it plans to move forward with labour policy reform, which would include hearing from unions, employers, all other levels of government, and Canadians. While this is encouraging, it begs the question, why not immediately repeal the egregious labour law changes found in the previous government's omnibus Bill C-4? Why review bad legislation that is contentious and unconstitutional?

The previous government's omnibus Bill C-4 also decimated health and safety protections for public service workers. When will the government commit to restoring these important safeguards for the people who deliver our essential public services?

As negotiations with the public sector unions resume this fall, public service workers are looking for the respect they were promised during the election, and they are hoping that this government will make good on its promise to restore fair collective bargaining for the public service.

As part of the promised labour policy reform, will the government bring in legislation to update and modernize the Canada Labour Code? As we know, sections of the code that deal with workplace harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements are about 60 years out of date. It is time we modernized the code to reflect the reality of today's labour market.

The most recent review of the Canada Labour Code last happened in 2006, with the final report making several recommendations to help an increasing number of part-time and contractual employees.

In May 2015, a briefing note to the former minister of labour said that the rise in part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers along with the demand for knowledge-based jobs has changed the nature of work and the workplace. Will the government work with unions in ensuring that part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers have the right to the same workplace and labour protections as other Canadian workers?

Given the rise in precarious and involuntary part-time employment, Canadian workers are faced with a host of added challenges such as eligibility for EI benefits. It often results in a diminished ability to save. The erratic hours create challenges in pursuing an education, arranging child care, and qualifying for a mortgage. All these are contributing factors to the greater income inequality, and if the government is truly sincere about helping the middle class, then it must immediately address these issues.

I am sure my esteemed colleagues will agree that in every corner of this great country there is still much we can do to bring a better standard of living to Canadians. As the economy continues to struggle and the cost of living rises steadily while wages stagnate, Canadians are looking to the government to make life more affordable. Affordable child care, pay equity, decent accessible housing, and a living wage are all measures that would really help Canadians from all walks of life.

Will the government commit to reinstating a fair minimum wage for workers in the federally regulated sectors? Some provinces and municipalities are already acknowledging that a living wage will make a huge difference in making life more affordable. Will our government step up and lead the way?

Another sad fact is that a disproportionate number of workers who are affected are women and young people. We cannot afford not to act. It is way past time for the federal government to bring in stand-alone pay equity legislation. We have studied this issue and consulted, and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Two committee reports have called for action, yet we continue to wait.

Through a combination of policy and propaganda, the previous government started to dismantle the system of protections that were put in place by decades of advocacy by labour organizations, community groups, and unions. Their right-wing agenda has generated policies that hurt the environment, social services, and all workers especially persons of colour, indigenous peoples and communities, women, the poor, and other marginalized groups.

Now that we have a new government in place, one that has promised equality for women, fairness for indigenous people, and sunny ways for all, I do look forward to seeing the current government work closely with all members in the House as well as with unions and civil society to bring about better jobs and a more secure future for all Canadians.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was here during the previous Parliament and I was very involved in the debates on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, but his speech was extremely simplistic. All throughout his speech, he talked about secret ballot voting, but the scope of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 went much further. These bills were clearly an attack on unions in general.

My colleague failed to mention two specific points. The first has to do with the fact that unions had to disclose all expenditures over $5,000. Never mind the red tape and possible delays in the labour process, this would have also created a clear imbalance. Of course, management would be aware of the amount of a union's strike funds, for instance. Even that was unfair to the unions.

The second, which is even more interesting, has to do with the vote my colleague was talking about when he said it was totally anti-democratic. Under the bill that was passed and that will be repealed, union certification or decertification required the consent of 50% of the members plus one, including abstentions, which is absolutely anti-democratic.

Can my colleague comment on the anti-democratic nature of these two points?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak, but I would rather not have to do so on the subject of Bill C-4. Today is not a good day for Canadian democracy.

This is the final stage of debate on Bill C-4, a bill that takes aim at union democracy, the transparency that must be present in certain unions, and the accountability that is so vital not only within unions, but everywhere. People are becoming increasingly aware, particularly this week, that the government is no no position to lecture anyone on accountability.

Bill C-4 seeks to literally kill two bills that passed during the previous Parliament, two private bills that we, the Conservative Party, fully respected. We fully respect private bills, because we believe that all members of the House are equal, and all bills introduced here are equal. There is no such thing as front-door bills and backdoor bills. Every bill is voted on by members who all enter through the front door. Why? Because we are all accountable to our constituents. Regardless of whether a member is a government member, a cabinet minister, an opposition member, or an independent member, we are all members of the House of Commons. We all have the same authority to introduce bills. Shame on this government for referring to private bills as backdoor bills.

I want to repeat what I said earlier. I offered the minister the opportunity, the possibility, the chance, and the privilege to recognize that she has made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. Referring to the private bills we passed during the previous Parliament as backdoor bills is insulting to the House of Commons, and it is insulting to the 338 people duly elected by Canadians, our constituents.

I did not want to have to say this, but unfortunately I have to repeat that when a private member's bills is introduced, it is a front-door bill, not a backdoor bill. If we apply the Liberals' logic to the bill that was passed a few weeks ago, the one introduced by the Hon. Mauril Bélanger on the national anthem, are the Liberals prepared to say that that was a backdoor bill?

Are the Liberals ready to say that Mauril Bélanger's bill was a backdoor bill, yes or no? If they are ready to say that, they can rise up and say it.

It is impossible. We cannot say that a bill tabled by a minister or by an opposition member, or any member, is a two-tier bill. We are all members.

Bill C-4 seeks to kill Bill C-377 on accountability, and Bill C-525 on transparency. Let us look at them one at a time.

In our opinion, one of the fundamental principles in any organization is democracy. We want people who operate in a democracy to be accountable to their constituents, and also to earn that mandate. That is why when it comes to forming a union, we think all potential employees should have the opportunity to express themselves freely by secret ballot.

We were elected here, to the House of Commons, by secret ballot. Did we go to people's homes asking them to vote for us and sign a document? Of course not because we respect the voters' secret ballot.

However, this government prefers to uphold the old union ways, which require people to sign an application for union certification. We think that people would be more comfortable forming a union by secret ballot. For that matter, we think that would put the unions on a stronger footing.

A union formed by secret ballot proves that a majority of the workers really want it and that no one was subjected to undue pressure, whether from people wanting to unionize or from the company's executives who do not want the union.

We often think that unions are the only ones putting pressure on the workers by telling them they have to sign a certification application, but the opposite is true as well.

A business owner could go see new employees and tell them that they just got hired and that it would not be a good idea to sign. That would make employees think twice about doing so. However, allowing employees to vote by secret ballot on forming a union would respect the fundamental principle of democracy. That is why Bill C-4 is no good. It seeks to do away with this notion of democracy.

Let us also remember that union democracy is based on Canada's fundamental principles, and the best way to establish that democracy is to ensure accountability. On that note, I would like to mention another bill that will be killed by Bill C-4, and that is Bill C-525.

Bill C-525 sought to increase transparency and accountability. We believe that, when a union receives nearly $500 million in tax refunds, it needs to be accountable. That is not just peanuts. It is half a billion dollars. That is a lot of taxpayer money that is being given out in the form of tax refunds. That is why we believe that the salaries of executives, the way they manage their money, and the choices they make when it comes time to support political parties must be made public. However, Bill C-4 seeks to eliminate the transparency that we Conservatives think is critical.

My NDP colleague was saying that she organized and presided over a postal workers' union where all financial information was made available, but only to members. If that information is available to members, why not make it available to all Canadians, who contribute to unions through tax refunds? If that information is so public, why not make it really public? What do they have to hide? Making the information public would not bother anyone who did not have anything to hide. Why then are some members opposed to accountability and transparency?

That is why I am saying that Bill C-4 is a bad bill and that this is a bad day for democracy, because this legislation undermines the fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.

When it comes to accountability, this government has a long way to go, and that is putting it mildly. Day after day, we discover situations that embarrass the government. It is not a good sign when the Minister of Health uses a limousine service and gives out contracts to a Liberal friend but only apologizes and promises to repay the bill after she is caught.

Over the past few days we have learned that the Prime Minister's advisors expensed $200,000 in moving costs. At first, the Liberals said that this is no big deal. Then, they said these expenses would be repaid. That is definitely proof that the Liberals are not very proud of their record on accountability. However, accountability is vital.

MPs file a quarterly expense report, which includes travel expenses. It is very public. Woe to anyone with an ineligible expense, because they will be taken to task very quickly. Clearly, these are fundamental principles that we all support. However, when the time comes to make unions accountable, the Liberals, and I assume the NDP as well, do not want to have anything to do with it. That is unfortunate. Democracy, accountability, and transparency are fundamental principles in this place, and they must also apply to labour organizations.

The truth, as everyone knows, is that the Liberals wanted to thank the big union bosses who helped them out so handsomely during the election campaign. Let us not forget that PSAC was prepared to spend $5 million in August alone to attack the former government before the writ was even dropped. The former prime minister had to call the election in August so that unions spending massive amounts of money to attack a political party—spending that was not approved by all union members—would not completely destabilize our democracy.

That is why we had the longest election campaign in history. Unions wanted to spend millions attacking one party without even getting their members' approval.

I know what I am talking about. In my Quebec City riding, which many federal and provincial employees call home, I met a woman who told me that she actively opposed her union's choice, that she strongly condemned it, and that she was not even given the right to vote on whether the union should spend the money. That is what has been happening. The unions spent millions helping the Liberal Party rise to power, so the party is thanking its union friends by introducing a bill that will destroy everything we did for democracy, accountability, and transparency.

Maybe the government could have paid more attention to what union members and even some union leaders are saying. Not everyone is comfortable with Bill C-4. In fact, some union leaders are very comfortable with the principles of transparency, democracy, and accountability. People have spoken out about this a number of times.

For example, PSAC's Robyn Benson said:

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

That is not a Conservative or a right-wing group talking. That was Mr. Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I have other quotations, too.

Dick Heinen of the Christian Labour Association of Canada said:

We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all.

Brendan Kooy, Christian Labour Association of Canada, said, “To be clear, CLAC would support a secret ballot vote where possible.”

Here is another quotation, this one from John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications:

Members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card check system for the purpose of determining if a union is to become a certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles.

I agree with him.

Also, Paul Moist, national president, Canadian Union of Public Employees, said, “Asking Canadians a question about voting — most Canadians, me included, would say voting is good.”

Chris Aylward, national executive vice-president and executive officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that there was not issue with voting by secret ballot. He said:

But we're not sitting here saying that secret ballots are bad. As a matter of fact, in my submission I said that we have nothing against secret ballots. We use secret ballots at our own organization....So it's not that a secret ballot is now going to be imposed on employees and we're opposed to that. We're not.

It is hard to argue against a secret ballot vote as this is the basis of democracy.

Those are the foundations of democracy. Secret ballot voting is one of the foundations of democracy. Accountability is one of the foundations of democracy. Transparency in how union leaders spend union dues is one of the foundations of democracy. That is what we established, and that is what Bill C-4 seeks to destroy, specifically the foundations of democracy in the labour movement. That is troubling.

This is being done elsewhere. We did not invent anything new when we introduced this bill two or three years ago. On the contrary, we were inspired by what we saw being done elsewhere. Secret ballot voting exists in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Why can it be done at the provincial level, but not federally? Does that mean that the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia are against unions and against freedom of expression? Quite the contrary. If it can be done at the provincial level, why not at the federal level? So much for democracy.

The same goes when it comes to transparency and accountability. This exists in certain provinces, but also in certain countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and even France. If there is a country that leans more to the left than Canada, it is France. If there is a country that has been led by the left for years, it is France. If there is a country where unions are fully free to be active and have a very powerful presence in the economy and society, it is France. France has provisions to ensure transparency. Who are they to say that France would not be open to the unions when we know how powerful and strong the unions are in France? It is absolutely false.

I invite the government to look at what is is being done in Canada and in the provinces, as well as what is happening in countries that are more to left than we are, where unions are more powerful than ours and have room for transparency, accountability, and democracy.

There have been court challenges, which is absolutely legitimate in our system. People brought challenges before the courts over certain legislation that was adopted by the provinces. Look at what was said in Saskatchewan by the court of appeal that ruled on whether changes like those the Conservatives made two or three years ago should or should not be made to the employment legislation of that province.

Let us look at the statement made by Justice Richards of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan, who says on page 38:

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

He also says, “The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of modern democracy.”

This is not coming from a Conservative, but from a judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. We know that Saskatchewan is not a right-wing province. Was it not in Saskatchewan that Canada's major social movements were born? Was it not in Saskatchewan that T. C. Douglas founded the party that would later become the NDP? Saskatchewan, which is not recognized as being the most right-wing province in Canada on the basis of its history, has acknowledged through an appeal court judge that the secret ballot is a good thing.

To summarize, Bill C-4 is not a good bill. It seeks to kill two bills that were duly debated and passed by the former Parliament, two private bills, which, for the Conservatives, are not backdoor bills, as touted by the minister and other Liberal members in such a mean, petty, aggressive, and haughty manner.

In our opinion, all bills are equal, starting with the bill Introduced by the Hon. Mauril Bélanger on the national anthem. It is exactly the same thing. It is not a backdoor bill, but a bill that was duly introduced by a member, a bill that came in the front door, and not the back door.

Unfortunately, Bill C-4 will likely soon be passed, even though it undermines principles that are fundamental to Canada and so important to Canadians. It undermines the principles of democracy. People should be allowed to vote by secret ballot rather than be asked to sign a sheet of paper. We want to protect the secret ballot. That is how everyone here was elected.

Bill C-4 seeks to attack a bill that would increase the transparency and accountability of unions. The government is sending the wrong signal to unions and all organizations because when it is time for accountability, they all need to do their part, to be accountable.

The bills that we passed under our government improved democracy, accountability, and transparency, while Bill C-4 undermines those principles. That is why today is a sad day for Canadian democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to make my case shortly, but for now, I want to pick up on something the minister said.

All we know is that Bill C-4 was tabled to kill two former bills that were adopted by the previous legislature, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The minister referred to those as “backdoor” bills. As far as I am concerned, every bill and every member is a front-door bill and a front-door member. There is no back door here.

I offer the hon. minister the opportunity to rise up and recognize that she has made a mistake. If she will not, would she rise up and recognize that the bill tabled a few weeks ago by the Hon. Mauril Bélanger concerning the national anthem was also a backdoor bill?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here once again to speak to the House about this legislative package, which would help all Canadians, businesses, and workers. That is really the ultimate purpose of the bill, to reduce conflict and ensure that our economy will be working as harmoniously as possible so that we can create jobs and have a healthy, strong economy, which is what every single member of the House is working toward.

This is the final reading of Bill C-4.

Our relations with the labour movement are not based on conflict, and should not be. Rather, the solution and the best approach is collaboration. We believe in co-operation with the labour movement because it benefits all Canadians. This was a promise that our leader made last year during the election campaign and introduced through the legislation known as Bill C-4. We believe that our system of open negotiations serves in the interests of both the employer and the employee, as was clearly evident in the recent negotiations between Canada Post and CUPW.

The bill not only is a significant step forward, it also has a strong symbolic value. It sends the message that a partnership, rather than adversity, is now the basis of our relationship. Our government takes an approach to labour relations that is based on collaboration, respect, and engagement, not the Conservative approach. We believe in fairness and justice for Canadians.

Truth be told, the labour movement has been an essential building block for a stable and strong economy, which we have now in our country, as well as a fair and inclusive society. The labour movement provides a collective voice for workers in their negotiations with employers. Unions have had a historical concern for the interests of the middle class, whether they are members or not, and strive for fair wages for all workers. They have been instrumental, in fact they have been central, in the movement to achieve fairness for women in the workplace, for indigenous workers, for workers with disabilities, and for all workers across this land.

This is in harmony with our values and our thinking as a government. This is also in harmony with our values and thinking as Canadians. This is why we believe our labour laws should be balanced and fair. Why have we put so much effort into this piece of legislation? Simply stated, we wanted to restore fairness and balance in labour relations because it has been missing for the previous 10 years.

The objective of Bill C-4 is to repeal the legislative changes brought in by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and supported by the previous government and delivered via a backdoor, sneaky approach to governing. The situation is very straightforward. These two bills upset the balance that has been carefully maintained for years. They upset a balance that ensured fair treatment for employers and workers, and that served as a solid foundation for collective bargaining and for our economy.

I do not mind calling this what it is. Those bills were anti-union legislation, and we would now correct the state of affairs.

During the committee hearings, we heard from a number of key stakeholders who provided specifics about the serious flaws in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. For example, we consider the fact that Bill C-377 forces labour organizations and labour trusts to provide very detailed financial information such as expenses, assets, debts, salaries of certain individuals, and other information to CRA. This private information would then be publicly available on that website.

They would also have to provide details on the time spent on political and lobbying activities, as well as any activities not directly related to labour relations. Thankfully, the Minister of National Revenue has already taken steps to suspend these obligations in 2016, while Parliament has been examining Bill C-4.

We must all understand that if this key financial information, including strike funds, were made public, these measures would put unions at a huge disadvantage, because employers are not required to publicly disclose similar financial information. It is totally unfair and unbalanced.

As well, Bill C-377 imposes a large financial and administrative burden on labour organizations and labour trusts, information that is not required from others. Why would unions be the only ones forced to comply with these requirements while other organizations, including professional organizations, would be exempt? Frankly, it is difficult to see how that legislation could actually benefit hard-working Canadians.

Some think that Bill C-377 was necessary to improve fiscal transparency. They say that it was necessary to guarantee public access to information. I fail to see the link between Bill C-377 and transparency. The rules contained in Bill C-377 are one-sided and discriminate against unions, and they upset the balance in labour relations. They add nothing to the current regime.

We already have legislation in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members at both the federal and provincial levels. For example, section 110 of the Canada Labour Code requires unions and employer organizations to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge. This is more than sufficient to ensure that both parties can negotiate in balanced conditions.

We knew from the onset that Bill C-377 was unnecessary and redundant. Not only does it disadvantage unions during collective bargaining, it is also an impediment to the bargaining process itself.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This bill has made changes to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and affects how unions are certified and decertified. It replaces the previous card check system with a mandatory vote system, despite the fact that the traditional system worked well for decades and there was little pressure to change it. In fact, the Conservatives hide the evidence in a labour department report that showed the success of the card check approach. It is shameful.

Bill C-525 makes it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents and makes it easier for bargaining agents to be decertified. However, it is not just a problem for unions. Consider the implications to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. These boards are responsible for the full cost and logistic responsibilities involved in holding representation votes.

Under these changes, the Canada Industrial Relations Board is required to hold a vote to certify a union, not just in roughly 20% of the cases where less than a majority of workers have signed union cards but in all cases. That translates into roughly five times the board's current workload. Unions now have to obtain support from 40% of workers before a mandatory secret ballot vote can be held. That is a great way to ensure that the unionization process is as complicated as possible.

Perhaps more alarmingly, the changes would also mean that the process is more susceptible to employer interference. During our committee hearings, Dr. Sara Slinn, associate professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, agreed.

She stated:

Employees require greater protection from employer interference under a vote system. These include access to expedited unfair labour practice procedures and more substantial interim remedies, but such necessary protections were not provided by Bill C-525.

It is evident that Bill C-525 does not represent a positive contribution to labour relations in Canada, not to mention that it is simply not necessary. The card check certification process that had been in place in the federal jurisdiction for decades worked well. We see no need to change that.

Bill C-4 represents the kind of positive contribution we want to see and that Canadians deserve. This action to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is part of a larger effort to repair damaged relationships with those who are producing prosperity and quality of life for Canadians.

Our premise is simple on this side: we know that working people are not the enemy. We also know that a backdrop of conflict and mistrust cannot be productive for either side when it comes to reaching agreements.

I am not implying that all is perfectly smooth and that there are not points of contention between us and the labour movement. The point is that discussions must take place on a level playing field and in a setting of respect and transparency.

Canada watched as recent negotiations stalled between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. We were asked if we would get involved and introduce back-to-work legislation. However, we did not go there. We respected the process, and alone, together, Canada Post and CUPW came to a tentative agreement.

We are also seeing this in provincial jurisdictions. Earlier this week, General Motors Canada and Unifor came to their own tentative agreement without any work stoppage.

Our conviction in the collective bargaining process is not misplaced. We are seeing real problems turn into real results through respect at all levels. When we give a little, we get a little.

We know that the labour movement deserves fairness from the federal government, and we have delivered in Bill C-4. This is only one of a number of initiatives we are undertaking to improve the workplace in this country, and we are just getting started.

Not only do we have a focus on fairness, but the fact is that in many respects, we have to get with the times. In this respect, we have pledged to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow workers the right to formally request flex work arrangements from their employers. This will help federally regulated workers balance their professional and personal responsibilities.

We are also working on reforms to facilitate flex parental leave, which will allow parents to create a plan that makes sense for their unique families and workplace circumstances as they expand their families. Both those initiatives are good for the middle class and good for our economy.

We are also putting forward many other measures that will benefit hard-working Canadians and their families. I hope that in both our actions and our words members can see that our government is committed to achieving real results for Canadians.

When it comes to dealings with the labour movement, I am the first to admit that we might not always agree on everything, but it is essential that our larger relationship be based on trust. Our rapport is built on the bedrock of common goals, goals like helping the middle class and those working hard to join it and creating good jobs for hard-working Canadians.

However, there is more to do on many other fronts, including ensuring fair and equitable conditions for workers and building a sustainable economy. Let me remind my hon. colleagues that we can only achieve these goals by having frank and honest discussions about the things that matter, by sticking to our values, and by never forgetting just who we are here to represent.

As I have said before, sound labour relations are essential for protecting the rights of Canadian workers and for helping the middle class grow and prosper.

I thank members for their time and attention and for the ability to put these comments on the record.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, It is an honour to speak today to a bill that could affect the balance in labour relations in Canada. I am referring to Bill C-234, which would prevent employers governed by the Canada Labour Code to hire replacement workers in the event of a strike or lockout.

Although most labour relations in Canada are governed by the provinces, it is important to point out that part I of the Canada Labour Code governs labour relations in private workplaces under federal jurisdiction. It covers key industries in our economy, such as international and interprovincial rail and road transportation, air and marine transportation, and telecommunications. Certain crown corporations, such as Canada Post, are also governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The Code ensures that there is balance between the union's right to strike and the employer's right to try to continue operations during a work stoppage. The current Canada Labour Code provision already restricts the employer's use of replacement workers. Employers governed by the code cannot use replacement workers to undermine a union's representational capacity.

I want to point out that opinions on this matter have always been divided, with some people being very supportive of using replacement workers and others very much against it.

A few years ago, there was a full review of the code, and this provision was one of the ones added. At that time, it was viewed as an acceptable compromise between the employers governed by the code and the unions representing their employees.

Although I am sure the member who introduced Bill C-234 probably wanted to improve labour relations, it is important to understand that the bill could upset the balance of the rights and responsibilities of both unions and employers under the terms of the Canada Labour Code. I want to remind the members of the commitment we made to re-establish balance and fairness in labour relations with the groups covered by the code.

I want to emphasize right away that, given the scope of what is being proposed, such a measure must take into account the views of all stakeholders: employers, unions, the government, and even external stakeholders, such as universities and any others that might contribute in any way. This will require feedback from and the participation of anyone who could be affected by this measure.

With that in mind, we have already introduced important measures to correct the inequities created by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which upset that balance. Those bills had a serious impact on workers and unions in Canada. They put unions at a disadvantage, and we believe that those bills must be repealed.

Much like this bill, Bill C-234, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were private members' bills, so they were not subject to the rigorous consultation that should take place on such issues. We must not take the same approach on this issue.

The issue of replacement workers is too controversial, with employers and unions having opposing views. However, in the past, both labour and employer organizations have been highly critical of changes being made to federal labour relations legislation through private members' bills without prior consultation with stakeholders.

We believe in an open and transparent approach to labour relations, one that promotes stability.

In the past, this type of reform involved consultations with employers, unions, and the government. For example, in 1995, a task force held extensive public consultations on part I of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with industrial relations. These consultations were held with unions, employers, and government stakeholders, as well as with academics and other groups that wanted to have a say on the issue.

The task force's report, entitled “Seeking a Balance”, served as a framework for significant changes to part I of the Canada Labour Code, which came into effect in 1999. Consultation and engagement help ensure that our policies are evidence-based.

The development of fair, balanced, and evidence-based labour policies is essential for both workers and employers.

We therefore do not support Bill C-234 because it does not meet this country's standards of openness and transparency, and it upsets the balance in labour relations.

The employer-employee relationship is essential to our economy. Good working relations result in stability and predictability in the labour force, factors that fundamentally support our economy.

We must therefore ensure that labour policies are in the best interests of Canadians because, in this country, we have a long tradition of labour legislation and policy designed to promote the well-being of all by encouraging collective bargaining and dispute resolution for the common good.

We are committed to implementing a labour policy that is balanced and fair for all workers and employers governed by the Canada Labour Code.

That is the spirit of our position on this very important issue.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to support Bill C-234—I am sure my colleagues will not be surprised about that—sponsored by my colleague, the member for Jonquière. The last debate on this valuable amendment to the Canada Labour Code was fruitful. All members who spoke raised important questions about both the bill itself and its manner of introduction in the House.

Before I speak to the bill in question, if I may, I will respond to some of the objections we have heard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons expressed his distrust of New Democrats' motives. This was based on his experience in provincial politics and the NDP's own history of labour-related legislation. He claimed indirectly that this piece of legislation is part of “games that are played between the Conservatives and the NDP with respect to labour”.

I would like to remind him of the distinction between federal and provincial parties and agendas. I do not hold the federal Liberals responsible for the policies and decisions of their provincial counterparts. This attitude of suspicion really is not helpful for healthy debate and is corrosive, I think, to Canadian politics.

While I might not agree with the them, I respect all of my elected colleagues' opinions and I equally hold all of my colleagues to their word. This is part of good-faith discussions and negotiations, without which any bargaining process crumbles, whether in the House or over employment conditions.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent took a principled position in opposing the NDP's amendment, and while I respect his commitment, I am saddened by his party's continued insistence upon outdated economic theory that sacrifices actual and practical considerations. He said, “Let us not forget that striking workers can always go work somewhere else”.

Individuals are not, at their core, economic beings or economic robots that just uproot and abandon their communities, friends, places, and memories for only financial considerations; and the government should not treat them as such. This brand of economic thought is blind to the realities faced by many working Canadians and, insensitive to the demands of everyday life, was really at the heart of some the previous government's destructive economic policies.

In addition, I would call into question various statistics and citations used by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. First, we must all remember that correlation is not causality. The numbers are not, as the member stated, speaking for themselves, but rather, the member is speaking for the numbers.

Second, while he rightly pointed to the recommendations of the 1996 Sims commission, my colleague neglected to mention that the commission found that Quebec has managed without major difficulty since the general prohibition of replacement workers. He equally neglected to mention the minority opinion of commission member Rodrigue Blouin, who noted that there was neither consensus nor conclusive evidence for the recommendations. Blouin recognized that replacement workers undermine the fundamental principles of bargaining integrity. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent did not acknowledge this. Nevertheless, I respect the member's position, his honesty, and his valuable respect for the equality of all members.

All members spoke to the balance that exists between employer and employee, thanks to the Canada Labour Code, and the threat of upending that balance. I commend my colleague from Regina—Lewvan for his excellent response to this criticism, which was not addressed in the subsequent debate, and I wish to return to this point later.

First, however, was the member for Cape Breton—Canso's argument for the need for a wide tripartite consultation process, instead of piecemeal changes through private members' bills. This process, through deliberation and study, would preserve the employer-employee balance.

My colleague's comparison of our amendment to labour law changes under the previous government is disingenuous. Bills C-377 and C-525, two bills given as examples, were introduced and shepherded through Parliament by the previous government, which held consultations in contempt and proactively stifled consensus-building discussion. Bill C-234 has been introduced the only way we know how.

The Canada Labour Code requires modernization. If the current government is willing to initiate this consultation process, I say, let us do it. The Liberals, however, will not do this.

We are nearing one year since the election. The government promised Canadians real change, and they have done better than the previous government, it is true. Of course, transparency and wide and thoughtful consultations are necessary to open government. The current government, however, is employing these consultations with partisan judiciousness, putting us in an awkward position.

Where was the broad discussion on arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Where are the consultations on Bill C-51, legislation that blatantly infringes upon charter rights and against which experts from coast to coast have been unified? In fact, where is any whisper that Bill C-51 is being put back on the table? How many more experts must speak out against Bill C-51 before the government acts?

In many cases, we have seen deliberate delay masquerading as thorough bipartisan concern. The government is willing to listen, it seems, only when it knows it will like what it hears. I should add that unlike my colleague from Winnipeg North, I am judging the government on its own track record.

I want now to return to the carefully crafted balance that my Liberal colleague spoke of previously. The phrase “sunny ways” we know was popularized by prime minister Laurier, a famous compromiser, yet we also know that Laurier's downfall was ushered in through some of the same compromises.

I strongly believe in compromises, in listening, negotiating, and thoughtfully coming to consensus, but on some issues, talk of balance is misleading. We cannot, for example, support aboriginal land claims and propose nation-to-nation dialogue, yet at the same time green-light pipeline development without consultation.

To say that we worked toward balance in this case is meaningless. We do not need to balance news coverage of climate change with deniers who ignore the science. Likewise, there is the idea that the current iteration of the Canada Labour Code balances, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso put it, “the union's right to strike with the employer's right to attempt to continue operating during a work stoppage”.

Management always has the upper hand in the current scenario, and Bill C-234 is merely trying to balance the playing field.

The carefully crafted balance the government claims exists at the moment between workers and employers under the Canada Labour Code appears to be the same as what exists between the opposition and the government here today. Management and the government will always have more resources at their disposal.

Furthermore, it is undeniable that the use of scab labour makes strikes more bitter, and sometimes violent. They also prolong the conflict. That does not really serve anyone.

As the eight-month-long strike at The Chronicle Herald newspaper in Halifax drags on, the Herald is losing subscribers and advertisers it may never get back. Workers are losing their regular paycheques and the work they so clearly love to do. Any readers that are left will have lost the quality paper of old.

Anti-scab legislation would help reduce days lost to work stoppages and would facilitate a quicker resolution to workplace disputes.

In Quebec, where anti-scab legislation has been in place since 1977, and in British Columbia, where a similar law has existed since 1993, days lost to strikes have actually decreased since these laws were enacted. These laws must be working, or subsequent governments would have moved to repeal them.

The bottom line is that nobody ever wants to go on strike, says Ingrid Bulmer, president of the Halifax Typographical Union, whose members are still on strike.

“When we went out, it wasn't because we want more, it was because management wants to take away so much. We are striking in self defense”.

She went on to say, “Strike pay is much less than what you are used to getting. If you live paycheck to paycheck it becomes a problem, and the company is using that as a weapon to bully us into surrendering. They have much deeper pockets than we do.... The balance is altogether tipped in the employer's favour”.

Bill C-234 will extend a ray of sunshine to Canadian workers under the Canada Labour Code. This legislation will restore good faith negotiations at the bargaining table, as both parties, employers and employees alike, will have something to lose by not coming to an agreement. This is not naive theory. This is a simple fact.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely relevant and if the member stays tuned, he will find out why it is so relevant.

The legislation members are proposing, the opposite of this legislation, is trying to change ideas that came forward from the Conservative Harper government, that ultimately threw labour relations off balance. This is exactly what the New Democrats are proposing to do in the private member's bill. Like the Conservatives, they did not do their homework with respect to that private member's bill. There is a process which all of us should actually respect.

New Democrats would agree with me on the point that the labour legislation that the government has brought in, in many ways is repealing legislation that the Conservatives brought forward. We made reference, for example, to former private members' bills C-377 and C-525. Those were bills that, I would argue, were brought through the back door of the House of Commons through private member's where there was no due process, no real consultation that had taken place, but it met a political agenda. It was not sensitive in terms of the labour movement, in particular, but many different stakeholders were not properly or adequately surveyed and the question was not put to them.

It is the same thing with regard to both political parties. I believe we witnessed a new attitude toward the way in which government is treating labour laws and Canada's public service. All one needs to do is to take a look at some of the things we have done in a relatively short period of time.

Today we are talking about Bill C-5, which is a piece of legislation that would deal with a change that the former Conservative government brought in, in the form of an omnibus budget bill, where it changed sick leave requirements. There were no consultations. It was the government's position and it was interfering. It upset a great number of people.

When we were in opposition, we cited the reasons why we had a difficult time, let alone that the change was packaged in a budget bill. We believed, at the time, that it needed to be changed and voila, today we have Bill C-5. It is rectifying a mistake made by the Conservatives. I have made reference to the two private members' bills which dealt with issues such as the certification and other issues related to public disclosure. Again, we witnessed no consultation that actually had taken place. We had Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 brought in by this government in order to balance the scale.

I believe that this government has successfully portrayed that it is not only a government that wants to see a different attitude but has been very effective at implementing it. We hope things continue to go well with regard to Canada Post. I remember talking to postal carriers with respect to the former government, and saw an attitude of distrust in the government of the day in terms of having an arm's-length approach. That government was prepared to take certain actions even if it meant going against Canada Post workers. Our government brought forward legislation like Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 to deal with the issues of our RCMP, and allow collective bargaining in order to allow the RCMP to become unionized.

These are all very strong, positive measures that have been taken in a relatively short period of time. The morale of our civil servants is so very important. That is one of the reasons we are seeing that new shift in attitude, and we will see dividends coming from that.

I had an interesting discussion not that long ago with a constituent who was reflecting about how the morale is, in fact, changing within our civil service. They look to Bill C-5.

I see you are trying to stand up, Madam Speaker. I believe I will be allowed to continue when the debate next continues.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today in support of the government's Bill C-5, one of a number of actions that the government has taken to restore the trust and confidence in our collective bargaining system in our country.

The bill goes to the heart of what we, as a government, believe in, which is collaborative, constructive relations with bargaining agents. It is a bill that highlights our belief that a balanced system of labour relations is the best one in a fair democracy.

This bill will repeal Division 20 of Bill C-59, passed in 2015.

Bill C-59 was the last omnibus budget bill introduced by the former government. It gave the government the power to circumvent the collective bargaining process and to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants.

To be more precise, it gave the Treasury Board the legal authority to do the following in the core public administration: first, establish and modify the terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees despite the content of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was negotiated in good faith in bargaining agreements; second, establish a short-term disability plan; and third, modify the long-term disability programs.

In other words, it gave the government the authority to ignore the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to put in place a new sick leave and short-term disability program without the support or agreement of the bargaining agents representing public service employees. That is what we have been speaking about in this debate. It serves to undermine the good faith that government needs to earn in its bargaining with its public servants and their representatives.

As members may know, the Public Service Labour Relations Act was initially passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and to negotiate collective agreements.

It is vital that the parties work collaboratively and that the ability of the public service to serve and to protect the government be enhanced. That is obvious.

Bill C-59 sought to give the government the power to unilaterally impose a short-term disability plan if an agreement was not reached.

Unilateral measures are not collaborative measures. They do not foster good will or respect.

That is why we objected to these measures when they were introduced, and that is why we are here today repealing the legislation tabled by the previous government.

Federal employees are Canadians like us, who, each and every time they come to work, do so in service to Canada and Canadians, with the goal of improving or protecting the lives of their fellow citizens. They are the people who protect the integrity of our ecosystems by collecting the data and science that is needed to make the decisions, the people who issue our passports when we travel, who inspect high-risk foreign vehicles to ensure our ports stay safe and our waters clean, who work in the local post office, who ensure the safety of our food and the security of our borders.

However, in the past decade, a good number of fundamental labour rights that were hard won by workers and unions have been rolled back.

We need only look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which make union certification more difficult and decertification easier, and which would require unions to comply with demanding requirements for financial reporting.

These bills were passed without the usual consultation of employer, union and government when labour relations legislation is amended.

These are some of the measures the members opposite have been speaking about that we are committed to repealing.

The previous government did not follow the negotiation process and made it much more difficult for unions and employers to bargain collectively in good faith and work collaboratively in the interest of Canadians. In contrast, we believe in negotiations to achieve settlements that are both fair for public servants and for taxpayers. Threatening bargaining agents through a bill is not a basis for constructive negotiations.

We started by introducing a bill to repeal Bill C-377. That bill created unnecessary red tape for unions, requiring them to submit detailed financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency, including on non-labour relations activities. We also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-525, which made it more difficult for employees to organize and negotiate collective agreements.

The President of the Treasury Board also committed to repealing the unfavourable provisions of Bill C-4, another omnibus budget bill passed in 2013, which sought to limit the ability of unions to represent their employees.

These are the important measures we have taken to restore fairness and balance in Canada's labour laws.

Let me sum up our responsible reasons for introducing Bill C-5. The bill would repeal the law that gives the government the power to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system on federal employees without collaboration or consultation.

During the election campaign, we committed to restoring fair and balanced labour legislation that recognizes the important role of unions in Canada.

We respect the collective bargaining process and we will bargain in good faith. We will work to negotiate collective agreements that are fair and reasonable for both public service employees and Canadians.

We want to restore balance, so that neither the employer, who represents the public, nor the union, which bargains for employees, has an unfair advantage in labour negotiations.

That is the system that best serves a just society. That is the system that will attract young millennials into our public service. That is the system in which we all exercise our responsibilities to ourselves, our communities, and to others. That is the system that best serves Canadians.

National Anthem Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say how much I respect my hon. colleague who has moved the bill. I have been here for a very long time, and he has been here longer than I. Throughout the whole tenure of my term here in Parliament, which is over 10 years now, we have always had respectful dialogue, and I will do my best to keep my dialogue in regard to his bill, which seeks to change the national anthem, as respectful as I can.

I am speaking on behalf of a massive amount of constituents that I have heard from in my constituency who are finally becoming aware that this change would even happen.

I became aware of this as the member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin back in a Speech from the Throne, which my colleague had mentioned earlier. Ironically, at a time when the economy and keeping our streets and communities safe are important ever-pressing issues, the proposed change that was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne elicited such a response from my constituents that it let me know overwhelmingly that this is not a change that the people that I represent welcome.

That is our role as parliamentarians. Our role is not to take some other personal considerations into effect. Our role as representatives is to represent the will of the people that we were elected to represent. We should always be considerate of that first and foremost.

I have looked at a number of articles about this particular issue that have been printed in regional or national media. It always refers to, usually, colleagues from my side of the House speaking to this particular issue as they are reflecting the will of their constituents, yet when we hear from members of Parliament from other particular points of view, they are talking about how we need to pass the bill from a perspective of a personal attachment to a situation that a member of the House is going through. However grave that actually might be, it should never be a rationale for how we make decisions or determinations in the House.

We should always seek to do what is best and in the best interests of all Canadians and what the will of the people who sent us here to do our job actually is. I have not heard a lot of that debate on what the representatives who are voting in favour of the legislation are actually hearing from their constituents. I hear emotional arguments, but I never hear what the constituents of the folks who are voting in favour of this legislative change actually have to say.

I have been here a long time. As a matter of fact, my private member's bill in the last Parliament sought to make a change that would have affected a few hundred thousand, maybe one million workers, Bill C-525, and I was accused voraciously of doing this through the back door, taking a back-door sneaky approach to change some legislation when my bill went through the entire process. The process took over a year for it to happen. The committees at both the Senate and the House of Commons heard from dozens of witnesses and interested parties. It went through the private member's process.

I am not questioning the member's ability to bring forward a legislative change. I respect member's rights and privileges in the House. He has every right to move a legislative change as he sees fit. I do not dispute the fact that he has the right to do this. However, the process has been gerrymandered from the outset.

The bill was passed in the chamber on, I believe, June 1. It went to the committee on June 2. One witness was heard from for 45 minutes. The chair of the committee made an appeal to the members of the committee based on the medical health condition of the sponsor of the bill, and the bill was subsequently sent back to the House the very next day.

I have never seen a private member's bill move so quickly through the House without regard for due process, which is very concerning to me. If that is the process of how legislation is going to be adopted and changed, I can hardly wait to see what the Liberals are going to do with the changes they are going to be proposing when it comes to democratic reform, because if that is the MO, then we have a lot to be worried about.

Before I finish, I just want to read what one person, who was not able to get her particular point of view, either in a written submission or directly to the committee, taken into consideration. I will read this letter into the record.

It says, “To Whom it May Concern, I am writing you as a young concerned Canadian. I just finished reading a news article about [a Liberal MP's] Bill C-210, which calls for the lyrics of our national anthem changed to be 'gender neutral'. I am absolutely appalled that this is even being given thought, let alone consideration. I would first off like to state very clearly that I am not writing to you...out of any closed-mindedness [or malicious intent]. I am a full supporter of equality and inclusiveness 100% but I draw the line at the proposed lyric change in O Canada, and here is why:

“'True patriot love in all thy sons command. True North strong and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee'

“That block of lyrics is in reference to our sons at the front during the world wars. Yes, I am well aware that there were many nursing sisters at the front as well, but the reality is that our sons by far outnumbered our daughters at the front.

“Let's not forget the 1917 MSA conscription during the First World War after we lost the entire Newfoundland Regiment on the first day of the battle of the Somme. We lost our SONS in less than an hour, the regiment was all but wiped out. To change those lyrics is not only a slap in the face to all who serve now, but to our grandfathers and great grandfathers who so bravely marched on into battle for the freedom we enjoy today. It's a direct spit at the memories, stories and legacies those men left behind.”

The author of this letter is clearly indicating what we all know and feel in our hearts, that the national anthem, as it was changed, was done so to respect a time in history. It is not meant to be gender biased in any way, shape, or form. It is a historical anthem. It was our nation's founding moment. Many historians would argue that when our sons, mostly sons, who were fighting in the wars at that particular time made an assault on Vimy Ridge, they earned our right to participate internationally. Some would say it was the birth of our nation.

She goes on to say in this letter, “The final line in the block of lyrics actually renders the statement gender neutral”, and she says “I say this because we as a nation do stand on guard for “thee”. “We” is the part that means “all of us”.

She argues that the previous line that talks about “in all thy sons command” refers to a part of our history. The part that “we stand on guard for thee” is the gender neutral language, which encompasses all of us and charges all of us with the diligence to look after, protect, and preserve our nation.

This is a good enough reason for me, based on the fact that many of my constituents have already told me how they feel about this and the fact that the bill, regrettably, and I do understand the circumstances, does not seem to have been given due process in this place at all. I am going to have to vote against the legislation.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.

Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all RCMP members, both past and present, for their service and putting public safety before their own safety every day.

I had the opportunity to speak to the bill when it was at second reading. In my speech I stated that we supported Bill C-7 going to committee, where we would ask the government to amend its legislation to explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot.

I respect the Supreme Court decision that RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. The purpose of Bill C-7 is to satisfy this ruling and ensure the RCMP has the framework in place to bargain collectively if its members so wish.

If we look to the court's decision, we will see that employees' choice was the cornerstone. It is my opinion that a secret ballot is the most appropriate method of ensuring members have that choice free of intimidation and negative ramifications. A lot of young and new members may feel unsure about how they are supposed to vote when they are working in a ranked structure. Their management in the field detachments is older than they are and will have an understanding that is different from theirs.

Many members across the force want to see change. Speaking from personal experience as a former RCMP member for 35 years, people tend, especially in police roles, to be very private about individual concerns due to the chain of command structure in the police environment.

However, with a secret ballot, members would have the ability to vote honestly on whether they wished to unionize without fear of ramifications. That is why I believe it is very important that members feel secure in their decision that the choice should be something members are able to reflect on in private.

I will not be splitting my time after all, Madam Speaker. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a lot to say. I will take the full 20 minutes and leave him 20 minutes on his own. I apologize.

As promised during the second reading of the bill, our Conservative Party requested in committee that C-7 be amended to require secret ballot certification. I was very disappointed that the government was unwilling to make this essential change. While I support the intent of the legislation to allow the RCMP to collectively bargain, I cannot support the bill as it is currently written. In the certification process for a bargaining agent, a secret ballot should be in place to allow all members to freely express their own opinions.

The Supreme Court judgment was silent on the method of choice in that it did not clarify whether the certification process should be by 50% plus one majority or by secret ballot, and that is too bad.

It has been argued by other members that the principle of a card check should be upheld as a sufficient and appropriate method for the RCMP, because that is how workers in the private sector and other federally regulated groups will decide on collective bargaining once 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 passes its final reading.

We do not use a show of hands or a public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we in the workplace, especially in this set of circumstances.

The right to peaceful association is granted to workers through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the unmitigated right union leaders feel they have to represent a particular workplace is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This leadership is something that must be earned from the membership. Union leaders need to remember that representation is contingent upon workers placing their trust in the particular union of their choice through a democratic selection process.If union membership can elect its national president or any of its executives, directors, or leadership by way of a secret ballot, then in all fairness the workers should be afforded the very same right to have a secret ballot during the union certification process.

The right to be able to vote one's will free of intimidation or threat is a fundamental freedom and a right that should be extended to all workers. That is why when we were government we passed Bill C-525, the employees voting rights act, which required that certification of bargaining agents under the Public Service Labour Relations Act be achieved by a secret ballot vote based on the majority.

As noted earlier, Bill C-4 would reverse the procedures for the certification of bargaining agents that existed before Bill C-525; that is back to card check.

It has been argued that the RCMP, a public service, should not be treated any differently from other groups of workers. If it is good enough for every other federally regulated group to certify under a card check system, then it should be good enough for RCMP members.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the requirement to unionize was a consequence of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It was not a consequence of the majority of RCMP members wanting this type of method to govern the way they protected themselves.

Following the court ruling, the government launched a consultation process that took place over the summer of 2015. It consisted of a survey, town halls and video conferences. With over 9,000 members completing the survey, there was a clear expression that they would like a regime designed specifically for the RCMP. They did not want to be lumped in with other civil servants.

The government needs to realize that the RCMP is a police force with a unique role and a unique chain of command structure. It is clearly different from other federally regulated groups and therefore should be, in my view, treated differently. The RCMP should have the ability to decide whether to unionize through the most appropriate method for it, not for another group. Members deserve a secret ballot.

Recognition of this should have been taken by the government in order to realize the RCMP was not like other federal departments. However, the Liberals have refused to amend Bill C-7 to allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot. Therefore, I cannot support the bill.

I am extremely proud of the RCMP and its members, and to have served in that organization myself. Its members risk their lives every day and should hold great pride in serving Canada's police force. The least we can do is give them the right to vote, free of all intimidation, on whether to unionize.

Earlier today there was talk about the staff relations program, which was brought in in the early 1970s. Unlike some of the comments that were made with respect to it, it was a program wherein the representatives were voted in by the members. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it negotiated in good faith with the management of the RCMP and Treasury Board, and it provided strong representation to the members. We remained in the top three police forces per pay and benefits for many years under that program.

Somewhere throughout the1990s and 2000s, when things got tight in all governments, the system declined and the pay and benefits of the members of the RCMP declined with the cuts made by the Liberal government and by the Conservative government afterward.

The unionization of the RCMP is profoundly different than any other union that has ever been formed in our country. It is a legislated requirement. I do not believe any member in the House could stand before me and tell me of any other union in Canada that was formed by a legislated order and members told that they had to vote but not it could not be a secret vote. Right off the bat that is intimidation by the government down to the people in the field.

Yes, there are groups in the RCMP across Canada that want to see a union. Other members do not want to see a union. However, the one thing they all will agree on is that they are at the bottom of the police totem pole when it comes to salaries and benefits.

I mentioned earlier that in the 1970s, 1980s, and even into the early 1990s, we were always part of the top 10 police forces. In fact, we did not even recognize the police forces that ranked 11 down to 50-something. We only looked at the top 10. Staff relations negotiated to keep us in the top, and it kept us in the top three for many years.

However, today the RCMP is ranked 56th. It is a sad situation for Canada's national police force to be number 56 on the totem pole of police forces. It should be in at least the top 10, and it should be in the top 3. It is Canada's police force. It is Canada's international police force. It is internationally recognized as one of the best police forces in the world. Yet we are only paying its members at the bottom of the scale.

It was mentioned earlier that a survey was done in 2015 to determine how the members of the RCMP felt about unionizing, or to determine if there were concerns with respect to people representing them in some type of bargaining. Approximately 9,000 members said that they needed a better system. That is only roughly one-third of the membership.

Clearly, from speaking to the members of the RCMP who are stationed in my community, many are uncomfortable about the fact that the RCMP may become unionized. They are proud to serve their country. A lot of them joined the RCMP for one specific reason: not to be in a unionized organization. They wanted the freedom to serve and not be controlled by an internal organization. Now they will have to vote in that regard.

I just want to state an opinion here, which is this. If they voted against it, would we be back here in another year and a half when another group challenges it through the Supreme Court?

I want to talk a bit about the discomfort of the members in the field. I am talking about western Canada specifically, eastern Canada, those members who are stationed in small detachments. I will give a brief example of what I mean by small detachments. It could be a detachment of two members, with a corporal in charge. It could be a detachment of six members, with a sergeant in charge. It could be a detachment of eight members, with a sergeant and then a corporal. That is how the rank structure works within the force. As the numbers go up, so does the number of NCOs in the detachment. A staff sergeant would command a detachment of 14 members with one sergeant. Once it gets up to 18 or 20 members, there are two sergeants and then there is a corporal.

However, the problem is that the members all work together to protect their communities, to protect the safety of the people within that community, and to protect each other's safety. They go out there, as mentioned earlier by other members, and they are the first ones at the scene. They are the first ones to go to the shootings, the violent assaults, the fatal accidents. They have to work hand in hand with each other. How can the Liberals expect a young constable in, for example, a staff-sergeant detachment with a staff sergeant, two sergeants and two corporals, to vote, when he has to vote in front of them on the way he thinks it should be, knowing they or the other constables that he works with may feel totally different from how he does? However, he has to stand up there and wave his little card and vote. Do they think he is not going to be intimidated? Members will be completely uncomfortable about voting on whether they should become unionized if they have to vote in front of their peers.

The thing that is very unique about the RCMP, and very similar to fire departments, is that the rank and file in the smaller detachments, going even to an inspector's detachment, which comes in at 50 people, or a superintendent's, which comes in at 100 members, work hand in hand. Those members deserve the right to decide whether they want to unionize, but they should also have the right to vote privately and secretly so that they do not put themselves in an awkward position with their peers, with their supervisors, and with their buddies with whom they work side by side, with whom one day, or even the next day, they may have to go back to back in a scuffle in a hotel. Sometimes it is hard. One member might be mad because a guy voted the other way and might not work as hard as she or he should.

It is a dangerous precedent that we are setting here. The RCMP, fire departments, and even police departments are unique. They are a proud lot of people who go out there to fight for their communities, to keep their communities safe, and to keep each other safe. However, their pride is individual. They are proud of serving an organization, but they want to make their important decisions on their own, and we would take that fundamental right away from them. We should not. We must look at that aspect of it.

I cannot support the bill, simply because we would not give the members of the RCMP the right to vote secretly on the decision of whether they want to unionize.

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

Madam Speaker, it is odd, I hear my Conservative colleagues making speeches and I get the impression that they are not talking about Bill C-7 so much as the former Bill C-525, which forced a secret ballot for union certification processes.

The NDP believes that the ability to form a union is a fundamental right and that RCMP officers deserve to have the same rights as the members of the other unionized police forces in Canada.

I would like my Conservative colleague to say a few words about that. Why does he think that RCMP officers should not have the same rights as members of other police forces in Canada?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my support for Bill C-7, a bill that respects the rights of the dedicated women and men serving in the RCMP by providing a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

The bill is a significant step forward in the history of the RCMP and its labour rights. It would enable RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I am proud of this initiative that is so in the public interest and serves the rights and well-being of these dedicated women and men.

Our national mounted police force has not only a storied past but now a stronger future. Since its beginning in 1873 when Prime Minister John A. Macdonald introduced in the House the act establishing the Northwest mounted police, the RCMP has been an integral part of Canada's development. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin, Manitoba to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch passage through the Northwest Passage, to the last spike of the Canadian Pacific railway in Craigellachie, British Columbia, to the vital roles in World Wars I and II, the RCMP has played an instrumental role throughout our country's history.

Despite its long, storied contribution to Canada, its members did not have the full freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. That would now change. The Supreme Court of Canada has removed the barriers RCMP members faced in exercising this right, a right guaranteed to all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill provides the appropriate framework for the labour legislation that will govern the RCMP. It gives RCMP members and reservists the same access to a collective bargaining process that other police forces in Canada have.

To do that, the bill amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists.

More specifically, it will give RCMP members and reservists the right to choose whether they wish to be represented by an employee organization during collective agreement negotiations with the Treasury Board of Canada.

As I said, before the Supreme Court decision, RCMP members could not organize or participate in collective bargaining.

Indeed, they have been excluded from the labour relations regime governing even the federal public service since the introduction of collective bargaining for this sector. Instead, members of the RCMP had access to a non-unionized labour relations program. This program had initially been imposed by section 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations in 1988. It was then repealed and replaced by substantially similar section 56 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations in 2014.

Its core component was the staff relations representative program, or SRRP, the primary mechanism through which RCMP members could raise labour relations issues. It was also the only forum of employee representation recognized by management, and it was governed by a national executive committee.

The program was staffed by member representatives from various RCMP divisions and regions elected for a three-year term by both regular and civilian members of the RCMP. Two of its representatives acted as the formal point of contact with the national management of the RCMP.

The aim of the SRRP was that at each level of hierarchy, members' representatives and management consulted on human resources initiatives and policies. However, the final word always rested with management.

Many changes were subsequently made to this labour relations regime, which increased the independence of the staff relations representative program.

However, none of these changes had much of an impact on its objective, place or function within the traditional RCMP chain of command.

In May 2006, two private groups of RCMP members filed a constitutional challenge on behalf of RCMP members in Ontario and British Columbia regarding labour issues.

These two groups were never recognized for the purposes of collective bargaining or consultation on labour issues by RCMP management or the federal government.

They saw the declaration that the combined effect of the exclusion of RCMP members from the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the imposition of the SRRP as a labour relations regime unjustifiably infringed members' freedom of association.

The Supreme Court ruled that key parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were unconstitutional. It struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of employee in the Public Service Relations Act as unconstitutional, and it held that a section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the court affirmed that section 2(d) of the charter “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”.

In the case of the RCMP, the court determined that the existing labour relations regime, built around the staff relations representative program, denied RCMP members that choice, and imposed a program that did not permit RCMP members to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management's influence. It found that the staff relations representative program did not meet the criterial necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. Under this program, RCMP members were represented by organizations they did not choose, and they worked within a structure that lacked independence from government. The court held that this violated their charter right to freedom of association.

I am proud that our new government's bill, Bill C-7, addresses just that. It brings labour rights governing this group of federal employees into line with the federal public sector labour relations regime, which has been in place for over 40 years. It provides RCMP members and reservists with a sufficient degree of choice and independence from management while recognizing their unique operational reality.

The RCMP is a nationwide federal public sector police organization, and thus its labour regime should be aligned and consistent with the fundamental framework for labour relations and collective bargaining for the federal public service.

Bill C-7 includes several general exclusions that mirror exclusions already in place for the rest of the public service. For example, staffing, pensions, organization of work, and assignments of duties are excluded from collective bargaining. Each of these issues is instead dealt with under other legislation, for example, the Public Service Employment Act for staffing, the Public Service Superannuation Act for pensions, and the Financial Administration Act for the organization of work and the assignment of duties. This system has been in place for years, and it works.

Having recently taken the GBA+ training module that government provides, which is gender-based analysis, I was impressed to see how the RCMP has been implementing gender-based analysis, the lens that ensures that both women and men are properly served in policy decisions taken by management. I want to congratulate the RCMP for being a leader in the implementation of this very important program.

There are other ways in which RCMP members can express their concerns about labour issues. If a uniformed member has a concern about the safety of the uniform, he or she can speak to the workplace health and safety committee. Together with the union representatives, the committee can study the issue and identify the best possible solution based on the evidence.

Moreover, workplace health and safety issues can be included in the collective agreement through bargaining. If members have concerns about employment conduct, they can share them with the union representative on the labour-management committee.

In other words, there are other ways for RCMP members and the union to raise concerns outside of the collective bargaining process. The members and the union can work with management to improve the workplace.

I would also like to point out that some have criticized the bill and said that only pay and benefits can be collectively bargained. This is simply not the case. There is a whole host of other issues that can be collectively bargained. Conditions of work, such as hours of work, scheduling, call back, and reporting conditions, can be collectively bargained. Leave provisions, such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave, can be collectively bargained. Labour relations matters, such as terms and conditions for grievance procedures and procedures for classification and workforce adjustment, can be collectively bargained. For example, the decision to lay off an employee is a staffing matter, which is not subject to negotiation. However, measures such as compensation or the manner in which layoffs are conducted may be negotiated.

As I said, the Supreme Court invalidated the existing labour relations framework for the RCMP because it violated the charter right to freedom of association. The court suspended its judgment for one year to give government time to consider its options. The government sought an extension and was given an additional four months to provide a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists. Unfortunately, the suspension of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has now expired. Therefore, it is important that the government move quickly to put in place a new labour relations framework to minimize disruption for RCMP members, reservists, and management.

Indeed, delaying the passage of this legislation is problematic for a number of reasons. There currently is an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, making it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a cohesive national approach to labour relations. That is especially worrisome given the nature and function of our national police force, in which members are posted to positions anywhere across the country in a variety of functions and activities. The potential to be represented by a number of various bargaining units could be very confusing.

Should this not pass quickly, there is also the concern of uncertainty among RCMP members about their collective bargaining rights and the measures they can take should they need access to representation.

Let me add two further arguments for the swift passage of this legislation. The government took steps, including consultations with RCMP members in the summer of 2015 to bring this new framework into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. Last summer, regular members of the RCMP were consulted through an online survey and town hall meetings to seek their views on potential elements of a labour relations framework.

At the same time, Public Safety Canada consulted with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that are served by the RCMP through police service agreements. Public Safety Canada will continue the dialogue with contracting parties as the new regime is implemented. The findings from these consultations were very helpful and instructive in developing the elements of Bill C-7.

Finally, let me add that this bill is also consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. We believe in collective bargaining. That is why, for example, we introduced Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation act, which was tabled last April by the previous government. Division 20 would have provided the government with the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are also demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in fair and balanced labour relations, and we recognize the important role that unions play in Canada.

That is why we have also introduced measures to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were also passed without the usual consultation process for labour relations law reform by the previous government. Bill C-377 placed new financial reporting requirements on unions, and Bill C-525 changed how unions could be certified and decertified.

Bill C-7 restores the power of the federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board to select the certification or decertification method appropriate to each particular situation, and I would say fair method to both the representing and the represented parties, rather than being limited to the mandatory vote method, which can skew a decision against the union in certain circumstances.

The previous government had research and a report that concluded that very situation.

Recently, on May 25, the government announced its intention to repeal portions of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, division 17. The portions in question have to do with changes made to essential services, collective bargaining and processes for grievances, and dispute resolution without any consultations with public sector partners. We took these important measures to ensure that workers are free to organize and that unions and employers can bargain collectively in good faith.

Bill C-7 honours this right, a right that has long been exercised by all other police officers in Canada. It is the right to good faith collective bargaining. This bill would institute this right in law. It would lay out the rules that govern labour relations for RCMP members and reservists, and enshrine the principles and values of our society as reflected in the charter and as required by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would recognize the particular circumstances of our unique national police force, the RCMP.

I would ask my colleagues to do the right thing and support the passage of this bill, so that it becomes law without further delay.

Labour

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Saskatoon West on her speech and of course her great interest in labour and labour issues. I would like to share with the rest of the House as well that we share a similar view on what transpired over the past 10 years and with the former Conservative government.

Canadians were not fooled. They understood fully that it was organized labour that was under attack under the last government. We saw that through many manifestations, through various pieces of legislation. We saw it in unprecedented use of back-to-work legislation. The legislation for Canada Post and for Air Canada come to mind. Even before those organizations were in a strike position and those unions were in a position that they could go out on strike, there was back-to-work legislation coming off the shelf to be presented in the House.

We saw that, and absolutely Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were directed at organized labour. With Bill C-377 we saw that constitutional experts said it was unconstitutional. We saw privacy experts say that it compromised the privacy of millions of Canadians. We saw provinces and territories say that it infringed on an area of their purview, that constitutionally it was their area of responsibility.

That was what we saw. That was the table that was set in the last Parliament by the last government.

Certainly what we have tried to do since October 19 and since the new minister came in on November 4 was to set a different atmosphere around work and labour. Certainly the current Bill C-4, not the old Conservative Bill C-4, was the first piece of legislation our minister presented. It was to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, within Bill C-4. I was very happy that it was the first piece of legislation the minister tabled.

Over the course of my experience over the last four years dealing with both employers and employees, one thing that has been consistent and that has been clear coming from both areas is that any changes to the Labour Code have to be done through a tripartite approach with labour, employers, employees, stakeholders, the provinces and territories—everybody involved.

They said that clearly with Bill C-377 and they said it with Bill C-525. We believe that the 2004 definition that was brought in by past Liberal governments is the right way to go, but that any change in the code has to be undertaken with a tripartite approach. I hope my colleague from Saskatoon West will understand that is the approach this government would take in changing the Labour Code. It would be under a tripartite approach.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thought, coming from the hon. member, he would be quoting Ayn Rand.

In any case, the previous government, as part of its war on organized labour, brought in Bill C-525, which further toxified and rendered sulphuric relations with organized labour, and not just within the public service but with organized labour across Canada.

We committed in opposition, in our platform, and as a government and we followed through in terms of bringing forward legislation to repeal the provisions of Bill C-525. We believe that was the right approach.

As a government, we followed through on our commitments to reverse what the Conservatives did in terms of Bill C-525. As such, we would not impose on the RCMP an approach in terms of labour relations that is distinct from what every other union in Canada operates under.

We disagree fundamentally with the way the Conservatives approached this issue, in terms of Bill C-525. It is also important to realize that Bill C-7 actually gives a choice between a card check or a secret ballot.

However, we are not going to impose that on Canada's unions, on Canada's labour movement, which was an error that the previous government made. Again, it further toxified relations with organized labour. We disagreed with it then, and we followed through on our commitment to change that. To impose on the RCMP a regime that is different from what every other union in Canada operates under would make no sense.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government adopted an abusive approach toward organized labour. It introduced Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, designed to undermine collective bargaining rights in this country.

By contrast, we have undertaken to do what the previous government failed to do, and that is to give RCMP members, for the first time in history, the opportunity to collective bargain through an agent that they choose for themselves.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House to speak to Bill C-7. Throughout the discussion I will take the opportunity to emphasize that, even though I am not my party's critic on the matter related to this bill, two aspects of it concern me in both form and substance.

Bill C-7 concerns the 28,000 officers of the RCMP, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This bill was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's January 2015 decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada concerning the right of association of RCMP members. In its ruling, the Court gave the government one year to introduce legislation on the right of RCMP members to associate. That deadline was extended to May 16, 2016.

That is the first thing that I wanted to mention, as it reminds us of what we are going through, in terms of form, with the study of Bill C-14 concerning medical assistance in dying, in which I was directly involved.

RCMP members were not unionized, but they were part of groups and could have discussions with the employer under the staff relations representative program, which was established in the 1970s. It worked quite well, but was challenged by some groups of RCMP officers in Ontario, which resulted in this decision.

For the benefit of the Quebeckers who are watching, I should explain that the RCMP is also the largest police force in eight out of 10 provinces. Ontario has the Ontario Provincial Police, Quebec has the Sûreté du Québec, and the other provinces have the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is the police force that enforces the laws and regulations and maintains order in Canada.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to pass legislation conferring on RCMP officers freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. It was at that point that our government, which was in power at the time, began to clear the way for drafting this legislation, under the direction of the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Negotiations concerning freedom of association, agreements governing salaries, and all such matters do not happen overnight. We need to take the time to do it right, and that is the point we have reached.

The current government introduced Bill C-7. We agree on the principle of the bill, but we had some serious problems with some of the clauses. Therefore, during the clause-by-clause study, my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, who was a minister and who is a lawyer and a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, proposed some very important amendments.

Clauses 40 and 42, which were deleted from Bill C-7, had to do with health care and insurance provided to RCMP members. We are very happy that the government listened to the Conservative member for Durham with respect to deleting these two major clauses.

However, we do not recognize freedom of association in the same way as the government. We have two opposing views. This is also the case with another bill, Bill C-4, which I am working on in my role as employment and social development critic.

What is the government proposing, and what would we have liked to see in this bill? We think that the right of association must be recognized, but that it should be subject to a secret vote that reflects the will of the members. This is a key element that we enshrined in Bill C-525, for example, which was passed by the House of Commons. This bill required that union certification, specifically when a group of workers is trying to unionize, be subject to a secret vote.

The Conservative member for Durham proposed that solution, but the government rejected it. We find that unfortunate. The sacred right of association must be enshrined in law so that, when it comes time to negotiate, that right is even more powerful, legitimate, influential, and authoritative. In our opinion, the best way to ensure and assert that authority and strength is establishing secret ballot voting.

We know what we are talking about here in the House of Commons. We were all elected by secret ballot. That way of doing things dates back to 1874. It is nothing new. Elected members of the House of Commons have been familiar with the principle of the secret ballot for a long time. The same is true for elected officials in the provincial legislatures across the country. Every elected representative is elected by secret ballot. The same is true at the municipal level. Our mayors and municipal councillors are elected by secret ballot. That is a given in our democratic system if we want those representatives to be powerful, strong, authoritative, and competent.

A solid foundation is needed when it comes time to negotiate and discuss and to ensure that people are properly represented. On this side of the House, we believe that the best way to give unions or union representatives more authority is to allow them to obtain that authority by secret ballot. We encountered exactly the same problem with Bill C-4, for which I am the official opposition critic.

Bill C-525, which was introduced by a Conservative member under the former government, enshrined in law regulations regarding unions and the creation of unions through secret ballot. All of us here, who have decision-making authority, obtained that authority because the people in our ridings voted for us. We think that, when people need to create a union or an association, their representatives, who will be given the authority to negotiate with their employer, should be chosen through the same approach.

That is fundamental, but unfortunately, the government members decided to do otherwise. That is the government's decision to make, but it is not what we would have done.

We believe that that element is fundamental and that the government should have acted accordingly. The Supreme Court specifically stated, in the ruling handed down in January of last year:

The flip side of...freedom of association under s. 2(d) is that the guarantee will not necessarily protect all associational activity.

From our perspective, the best way to give the newly formed group the necessary authority is a secret ballot.

I want to be clear. We support the fact that the 28,000 members of the RCMP, for whom we have a lot of respect, are doing a great job. It is the most honourable job in our country. They deserve a lot, and they deserve it for our citizens. We have a lot of respect for them. We agree with the fact that they should have the right to negotiate as a group. We recognize that. That is why our colleague, the hon. member for Durham, did a tremendous job at the parliamentary committee by pulling out two clauses, clauses 40 and 42, which were not as good as they should have been.

However, we are at a crossroads. The government prefers to have a way of recognizing the group that will represent the RCMP members. We believe the RCMP members would be better served if the election of those people as their representatives was done by a secret ballot vote in front of the government. That is why we agree with the principle of the bill, but unfortunately, we will not be supporting Bill C-4 because the government has failed to recognize that the secret ballot vote is the best way to ensure the strongest dignity of this group to be represented.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I'm from the riding of Saint John—Rothesay in southern New Brunswick. It's a blue-collar city, a labour city, a very industrial city. I can't find one union member or one union that supports Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Can you explain to me how it is that I can't find anybody in my city, if it's so popular?

[John Mortimer]

It was both French unions and the government that came together to ensure disclosure. I would draw parallels back to what happened in America when you essentially had a left of centre party, the Democrats, who backed what then senator John F. Kennedy did, because, the equivalent of the day to Mr. Yussuff, the head of the American Federation of Labor, George Meany, advocated the goldfish bowl theory, which was that unions would be better in every respect if the light of day were shed on their activities.

There was a certain amount of support in that period of time in America amongst the most prominent union leaders for what John F. Kennedy did. That has not been here. We have learned from the American government website about illegal activities of Canada's unions involving other political parties in this country because we were able to read in there about donations they made to political parties. For example, when UFCW 1518 in Saskatchewan gave money to the New Democratic Party.

I think it's tragic what's happening here. The current Prime Minister, as a member of Parliament and as a party leader, spoke for pay at union executive meetings across this country before reaching the Prime Minister's Office. He made it clear to those union executives what he was going to do. Bill C-4 delivers.

During the hearings on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, there were plenty of submissions to read. When I was to appear here before, it was cancelled due to events in the House; there was no submission there other than mine.

I would ask the Minister of Labour, what consultation took place when you met shortly after you got your mandate letter with leaders in this country behind closed doors and told them in no uncertain terms that you would move one bill to take down Bill-525 and Bill-377, full stop, end of discussion? It was a very blunt meeting, I'm told, by people who attended it. This is not consultation. This is favours to Canada's union bosses plain and simple, and workers and taxpayers are the ones who lose.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

FETCO said that even though they believed in the spirit of Bill C-525, they knew it was flawed because it was done through private members' business. Do you think that the code should be changed to address replacement workers using private members' legislation, like the legislation the Conservatives moved with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Can I then ask a follow up-question to that? I don't have much time; I'm sorry to interrupt.

We've heard comments from Mr. Mazzuca and you...I don't know whether you said to completely repeal the other bills or to support Bill C-4, but why not support a measure of accountability that might change Bill C-377 or Bill C-525 rather than discard them entirely? Why not at least support some amendments to the existing legislation to make it more workable?

If accountability is desired, as I'm sure we could agree, why not just amend the current legislation rather than throw it out in its entirety?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You have been on the job since 2014. Since then, have you gotten the sense that the various concerns over Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were taken into account?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Imposing a mandatory vote had nothing to do with a more democratic system of accessing collective bargaining representation. This is clear from the fact that Bill C-525 originally required a majority of employees, not voters, to decide in favour of unionizing.

Under the original Bill C-525, workers who didn't vote would have been counted as casting a “no” ballot rejecting certification. Academic research and the experience of the United States are clear: adding a secondary, mandatory vote gives employers the opportunity to interfere with union drives and engage in unfair labour practices.

Under card check certification, workers electing to become a union member in the course of an organizing drive are already indicating their preference. If there is any doubt about their intention, labour boards have the power to order a secret ballot vote. In its 2014-15 annual report, the Canada Industrial Relations Board confirmed that the vast majority of cases that result in a representation vote confirm the applicant's level of support at the time of filling of the application. The board found that the level of support following the vote remains relatively the same, or is greater than the level demonstrated by the membership evidence filed with the application.

In the period following Bill C-525's entry into force, this was true for all matters where a representation vote was conducted, except one. This reinforced our point that Bill C-525 forced workers unnecessarily to indicate their preference in a separate, second vote that was redundant, with no purpose other than to grant employers and third parties additional opportunity to influence the outcome.

In conclusion, we commend the government for moving to restore balance, fairness, and evidence-based policy-making in the federal labour relations forum.

Thank you so much.

[Hassan Yussuff, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The Canadian Labour Congress, of course, is the single largest democratic and popular organization in this country. It speaks on national issues on behalf of 3.3 million workers. It represents more than 50 national and international unions in Canada. The Canadian Labour Congress strongly, of course, supports Bill C-4, restoring balance, fairness, and stability to federal labour relations.

From the beginning, the CLC opposed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 as flawed, ideologically motivated legislation. These private members' bills represented a fundamental and a dangerous attack on the rights and freedoms of working people in Canada to organize unions free from outside interference. These bills were developed without consultation with the labour movement. They threatened to polarize federal labour relations and fundamentally tip the balance between employers and unions.

Historically, changes to the federal labour relations regime have been incremental, based on careful study and research, and developed through extensive consultation with unions and employers. Bills C-377 and C-525 were the complete opposite. Bill C-377 was drafted and introduced without consultation with unions. The bill lacked any credible labour relations or public policy rationale. Bill C-377's purpose was to single out, interfere with, and weaken the unions.

No public company, registered charity, or non-profit organization has to disclose confidential or extremely detailed information, only unions. None of the organizations whose members can deduct professional fees, such as bar associations, medical associations, engineers and, of course accountants, were targeted, only unions.

Seven provinces and numerous constitutional experts warned that Bill C-377 interfered with provincial jurisdiction over labour relations. Experts in constitutional law pointed out that the bill violated the rights of workers under the Charter of Rights. Conservative senators warned of the serious risk to personal privacy and to thousands of individuals unintentionally put at risk by the bill, and so on.

Unions routinely issuing financial reports to their members in nearly all jurisdictions in Canada have laws entitling members to financial statements.

Bill C-377 would have cost taxpayers millions of dollars to spy on and/or punish unions. This is purely for the benefit of union-busting employers and the anti-union crusaders.

Bill C-377 was flawed as an offensive attack on unions and the constitutional rights of working people. We commend the new government in Canada for repealing it.

Bill C-525 was also drafted without consultation and without convincing justification. FETCO, the association of large employers under federal jurisdiction, did not claim there were problems with automatic card check certification. FETCO did not identify any problems with card check certification before or even during the debate on Bill C-525. Blaine Calkins, the sponsor of Bill C-525, justified the bill by referring to union intimidation in organizing drives and the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board. In fact, most cases of intimidation and unfair labour practice during the certification process across Canada involve employers. Eliminating automatic card certification and imposing mandatory voting have nothing to do—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's a point that I would like to make sure is also considered in this discussion, and it is that the clauses in the bill do not dictate whether it would be one way or another at certifying. In fact, it gives the opportunity to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to determine that, based on what is most appropriate at the time, so it doesn't restrict it to one or the other.

As well, the key issue here is that there is another bill before the House, Bill C-4, which has the intention of restoring the certification and decertification options and processes that were in place for employee groups before they were changed by the previous government through Bill C-525.

There is a Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It has the responsibility for reviewing Bill C-4, so these discussions about whether Bill C-4 is preferable to the previous government's Bill C-525 on these matters are going to have a full airing at that committee. That's where I think we should leave it.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Just for the record, CLAC, an Alberta union by and large, I think, gave testimony in earlier hearings. They are very much opposed to Bill C-525 and said the card-check system was a system that worked.

Again, Professor Slinn, you did such a good job on your presentation I guess I'm focused on yours, but I'd like you to elaborate on why you believe the card-check system is an unreliable measure of employees' wishes.

[Dr. Sara Slinn]

Again, between the period when the employer has in all cases been notified by the labour board that an application has been made and the time that the vote is held, in virtually all jurisdictions in Canada there is a time limit for that of between five and 10 working days.

The procedure Bill C-525 brought in has no time limit at all, so potentially it is a very long time period.

We also found in some of our research that this time limit was often not very well enforced by labour boards. Even though the statutory requirement was for five or 10 days, for example, it could often be significantly longer. We found that in that time period unfair labour practices did occur and they had a very strong effect on discouraging certification.

How this happens, is again, the employer has been notified that there's a certification vote and has a substantial period of time, a number of days, where they can communicate with employees. Unions do not have a reciprocal ability to contact and communicate with workers. For example, workplace organizing is illegal for unions to engage in; that is an illegal unfair labour practice. It provides a substantial period of time when the employer has unparalleled access to employees to have their views communicated.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Okay.

There's another thing just for the record. I know that Mr. Barlow was talking about how every union member he talks to is pro Bills C-377 and C-525. You know, the Saint John firefighters, IBEW, the pipefitters, operating engineers across the country—I haven't found anybody who does support it.

I have another question for you, Professor Slinn. Many opponents of the mandatory vote argue that if a secret ballot is good enough to elect our provincial representatives, it should be good enough for workers in deciding whether to unionize or not. Can you comment on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much. It's good to be here, Chair, and good to meet all of you as well. I haven't had a chance to say hi to everyone, but thanks for having me today.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for spending some time with us today.

Andrew, I want to ask you some questions first. I kind of want the Canadian input.

We've talked a lot today about employers and unions, but we haven't talked a lot about union or potential union members. I think what this really should be about is what is best for union members.

From what I've heard from residents of my constituency, whether they're in carpentry or mining, or pipefitters in the oil and gas sector, they liked what was in Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. It could certainly be different in other communities. We did some pretty substantial polling, and we saw that well over 80% of union members supported the changes that were in these two bills.

I'm wondering if anything has been done more recently. I think our poll was 2014. How do we come up with saying we don't want these things, when the word we're getting from union members is that this is something they do want?

[Dr. Sara Slinn]

Thanks very much.

I'll focus my comments on the representation procedures, reflecting my research experience in this area, and will address two aspects of these procedures: the nature of votes, and the academic research on the effect of choice of procedure on certifications.

In terms of the nature of representation votes, first of all, the confidential nature of votes shouldn't be overstated when assessing the reliability of mandatory vote representation procedures. Both employers and the union know which employees voted and which did not, in every vote, and know how many ballots were cast for and against unionization. This encourages employers and unions to draw conclusions about individual employee's choices and likely discourages some employees from voting, particularly in smaller units or where fewer ballots are cast.

Secondly, there is a faulty political election analogy at work here. Mandatory vote supporters commonly rely on a political election analogy founded on the view that certification votes are analogous to political campaigns and elections. The attraction of this argument is understandable, appealing as it does to ideas of free speech and informed choice and workplace democracy, but it's a false analogy.

The nature of union representation is not analogous to government power or political representation, and as a result, the nature of decision-making in a union vote is not analogous to that in a political election. First, the nature of the decision is different. Certification doesn't transform the employment relationship. It simply introduces the union as the employee's agent for the limited purpose of bargaining and administering any collective agreement that the union may be able to negotiate. The employer's overriding economic authority over employees continues in any event.

Secondly, there is no non-representation outcome possible in the political context. In political elections citizens vote between two or more possible representatives. There is no option to be unrepresented, so as Becker, for example, has pointed out, if union representation elections were to be analogous to political elections, then it would be a vote among different collective employer representatives with no option for non-representation. That's simply not the system that we have anywhere in Canada.

Finally, in terms of cards being a reliable measure of employee support, it's often contended that votes more accurately indicate employees' desire for union representation than cards, suggesting that card-based certification fosters union misconduct to compel employees to sign cards. Although this is possible, there is no evidence, either in academic studies or in the case law from jurisdictions that use this procedure, that it is a significant or a widespread problem. Anecdote isn't evidence, and certainly it shouldn't be a compelling basis for legislative change in the face of a lot of academic research finding that mandatory vote systems have negative effects on labour relations and that employer interference in certification is indeed a significant and widespread problem.

In terms of the academic research on the effect of the choice of procedure—vote versus card-based certification—you're likely already familiar with a lot of this so I'll be relatively brief and leave it largely to your questions if you want to go into more detail on these particular topics.

First of all, studies have consistently concluded that mandatory vote procedures in Canadian jurisdictions are associated with statistically significant reductions in certification application activity, including certification success rates. This is in the order of about 20 percentage points. Reduced organizing activity—that's applications as well as certifications—are found to be concentrated in typically more difficult to organize units where we're talking about weaker and more vulnerable groups of employees. The increased opportunity for delay and for greater opportunity for employer unfair labour practices are identified in the research as contributing to these effects.

Just on some earlier comments querying how it could be that employers could engage in unfair labour practices or anti-union activity in the vote procedure, it's clear how this can happen.

In every case, in a vote-based procedure, the employer is notified by the labour board that a certification application has been made. It then has the period between that notification and the date of the vote. In most jurisdictions in Canada, in all but two, there is a deadline for that vote. It's between five and 10 working days. Under the Canada Labour Code, there is no deadline for that vote.

This provides ample time for employers to engage in anti-union campaigns. Anecdotally I've heard of five-day plans where it's advertised what the employer must do on each of the days, for example in the five-day period in Ontario between the application and the vote, to defeat the certification. There's no evidence there isn't sufficient time for employers to respond between the application, the notification, and the vote.

Secondly, there's quite a bit of research on delay in the vote process. Representation votes, by requiring a vote in addition to submitting evidence, necessarily result in a longer certification procedure. It has been found that it significantly reduces the likelihood of certification where there's either no time limit—as is currently the case under the Canada Labour Code and other federal legislation—or the time limit's not well enforced. This is in the order of 10% to 32%.

These studies concluded that a combination of enforced statutory time limits and expedited hearings for unfair labour practices was necessary to satisfactorily offset these negative effects. Neither of these are currently available.

Delay should be a real concern under the current provisions, and it is something that Bill C-4 would in part address.

In terms of employer interference, the vote-based procedure gives employers a substantial opportunity to seek to defeat the organizing attempt. There are numerous studies showing this is not only widespread, but effective. A large percentage of managers surveyed in some of these studies admits to engaging in what they believe to be illegal unfair labour practices to avoid union representation.

Survey evidence by Lipset and Meltz has also found in Canada that non-union employees expect employer retaliation and expect anti-union conduct by employers. Research by Mark Thompson at UBC has found that Canadian employers are no less anti-union in their attitudes toward unions than U.S. managers. That is something also to keep in mind.

In terms of remedying employer interference, the dilemma with the mandatory vote procedure is that, on the one hand, quick votes are seen as necessary to protect employees from inappropriate employer interference, and on the other hand, holding a vote quickly might not allow labour boards an opportunity to effectively remedy employer unfair labour practices. The vote can be held before the unfair labour practice can be heard and a remedy awarded.

Employees require greater protection from employer interference under a vote system. These include access to expedited unfair labour practice procedures and more substantial interim remedies, but such necessary protections were not provided by Bill C-525.

I'll make a comment regarding the Bill C-377 changes. Disclosure is already required for unions for all bargaining unit employees. I'd also like to echo Mr. Sims' comments that in Europe there is a very different approach to labour relations. The difference in the approach to disclosure and to union finances is embedded in a very different labour relations system. The Canadian and U.S. system is, in the broader international perspective, an extremely unique labour relations system, and it's inappropriate to consider transplanting one specific element of an interwoven very different system.

In closing, the Bill C-4 proposed amendments reversing the Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 changes, particularly to representation procedures, are a change that better protects employees' decision-making about collective representation.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I don't see that it's red tape. It's interesting that the minister was presented this same prop, and then she was asked, so what are you proposing, Minister? Are you proposing this? In the United States we know that unions are not burdened with this as a requirement down there. Unions are still able to function, so we said, are you looking for something more reasonable then, or are you absolutely eliminating all transparency, all accountability, and that's what the plan is? It's not that. It's not something less that's reasonable. It's nothing—zero transparency, zero accountability. It's not a good example of where Canada is.

Mr. Hynes, you said you supported the transparency of Bill C-525, and that was the secret ballot. I think that for Mr. Kelly it's the same thing. You didn't support the process, but you supported the outcome.

Given the lack of transparency that's being proposed and the lack of secret ballot, which is a fundamental tenet of democracy, then what is the motive? If this is good what we have for our country, what is pushing the Liberal government to go in this direction? Do you have any input on what might be the motivation? Whose back is getting scratched here?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I think here it's evident that it goes against the organization of unions.

With respect to this question both to FECTO and CFIB, were both of you aware that at the same time the former labour minister, Minister Leitch, was supporting Bill C-525, she had academic research from her own department that concluded mandatory vote would decrease unionization but chose not to make it public. Independent researchers, including Sara Slinn, who's appearing in our next panel, concluded through their research that mandatory vote systems facilitate more worker coercion by employers than coercion by unions of workers by card check.

How do you reconcile that with your support of Bill CC-525?

[Daniel Kelly]

Not at all. In our support of Bill C-525, we're certainly not suggesting that all people in the prospective bargaining unit be allowed to have a vote as to whether or not they wish to be union. Now, certainly we would ideally wish that this becomes voluntary for everybody there, but at the very least, even in the current construct in Canada, as happens in the majority of provinces, we believe there is no better democratic procedure than to have a secret ballot vote so that there can be no intimidation either way, from the employer to the employee or from the union to the employee, to sign a card.

We don't elect you by having a show of hands in your riding. We elect you through a secret ballot vote. We believe union certification is another important decision.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kelly, I've heard you say a number of times through this presentation that your concern is with respect to these mandatory dues. That's really where your concern lies.

If I'm following this right, you're supporting Bill C-525. You like that because in fact it makes it harder for unions to unionize. That's what I'm hearing you say. You're saying that you don't like the mandatory dues, so you support Bill C-525, because it makes it harder to unionize, so that members in the union do not have to pay the dues.

[Derrick Hynes]

That's a great question. That's really one of our fundamental points throughout this process when Bill C-525 was brought forward. We've been consistently making the same argument and that is that under the Canada Labour Code, for our employers in particular, we do have a rich and successful history of the tripartite model for doing business, whereby government, management, and labour talk about issues. Nobody is delusional, thinking that we're always going to get along, but you quickly find areas of principle where you do agree, and then you sort out the ones on which you don't agree.

I think both employers and unions recognize that at the end of the day government is going to have to make some decisions when it makes legislative regulatory policy changes, but when we do it within the context of that tripartite model, it's proven to have worked. There are lots of examples of it, and even today we have various committees that meet various stakeholder groups where those three parties are around the table. It generally results in better solutions.

With respect to private members' bills, and I've heard this point several times, we don't think there's anything undemocratic about them. We just think that when it comes to the Canada Labour Code we have a process that does seem to work. It's worked for a number of years. It leads to better solutions where, at the very front end, we have discussions about key issues. They're not one-off issues, but we look at them in the totality of the entire code and what the implications might be for employers, government, and unions. Our experience has been that this leads to better outcomes.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Just to follow up, your members indicated their support of Bill C-525 because it was promoted as a fair, democratic process by which employees can “express their true wishes”.

Critics believe this legislation was designed to complicate and thereby lower the rate of union certification. This seems to counter the fair, democratic process. Was FETCO doing a disservice to the workers it represents by supporting the legislation?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our three guests for presenting this afternoon, it was very informative.

I will say that when I did my campaigning as a potential new MP—I'm from Saint John—Rothesay and it's a very union, industrial town—certainly one of the things I heard consistently at the doors, most certainly from union people, was that Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were anti-union, mean-spirited, and designed with an agenda in mind.

I'll start with Mr. Hynes. Can you tell me whether your view of unions is closer to adversary or partner?

[Daniel Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, members, for being here today.

I am keen to talk to you a little bit about why CFIB is concerned about the changes to the rules that are being contemplated and why we ultimately favoured the approaches that were taken in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

By way of background, we have 109,000 small-sized and medium-sized businesses as members of CFIB. All of them are independently owned and operated. None of them are publicly traded. These are true independents that are out there trying to make a living against incredible odds sometimes in your ridings across the country.

Union issues are tricky ones for many employers. Most of our members, the vast majority of our members, are non-union right now. Of course, that's true of most private-sector workplaces, as our data shows. Unionized firms in Canada are on the decline. But we did support the rules that were put in place in the two bills, and I want to give you a bit of background as to why we developed those positions.

It wasn't that we loved some of the provisions of Bill C-377. Typically, CFIB is calling on government to reduce regulations, not increase rules and regulations and red tape, so it was a bit unusual for us to support a bill that would add rules and regulations to a sector that currently has, I think, fairly few. The reason we did is to try to accommodate the gap that exists in Canada with respect to the fairness of our union rules relative to their international counterparts. It often surprises people to know that Canada is now the international outlier when it comes to union certification. In virtually every country in the world paying union dues, being part of a union, is a choice. It's not mandatory if there is a certified union in that location. In all of Europe, an employee can opt out of paying union dues. It's part of the European Union rules.

That often surprises people because we think somehow in Canada our union legislation is somewhere between Europe's, which is more restrictive, and the U.S., which might be a little more free. In fact, that's not true at all. Some states do require mandatory dues, as we do in Canada—a decreasing number of them—but Canada is now one of only a couple of countries that still require mandatory dues payment if there is a union in that workplace. That's the real issue that was behind our members' support for these two bills.

That a union can compel people to pay dues, through government law, we believe requires the highest levels of scrutiny, disclosure, and accountability. That's why we liked many of the provisions of Bill C-377. If that were taken off the table—and I'm not suggesting that the government is likely to go in that direction—I don't think Bill C-377, the provisions that are there today, would become necessary if employees were able to say, “I believe my union's doing a good job. I want to pay them dues” or they might say, “Hmm, I'm not sure. I'm going to withhold my dues or threaten to withhold my dues to ensure that I'm getting my questions answered properly from my union”. That is what's behind our support for these measures: the fact that Canada is now an international outlier, whereas perhaps in the past Canadian union laws were more in the mainstream.

Small firms, of course, strongly believe that union members should have the right to opt out of union dues. But I also want to share with you that employees, too, believe that additional disclosure is required. Some Leger marketing surveys suggest that 84% of the public agree that additional disclosure is required.

It wasn't a surprise that the new government has decided to turn back the clock on Bill C-377, but I have to admit it is very surprising that the new government is eliminating the right to a secret ballot vote in union certification. To me, that is the biggest issue that is on the table today.

One of the first things many provincial governments—for example, an NDP government at the provincial level that has been elected with the support of unions—do very early in their mandate is eliminate secret ballot votes in union certification. I cut my teeth on that issue back in Manitoba when a government changed there and Gary Doer was elected many years ago.

This is always a worry for small and medium-sized firms. The very principle of secret ballot votes, which we hold so near and dear in electing you, should be there for choosing whether or not to have a union, especially when that union has the power to compel absolutely everyone in the unit to pay dues whether they wish to or not.

That, I think, is the part I want to leave with you. Our biggest concern about this is the fact that this bill would end the right to a secret ballot vote in all circumstances before a union is certified. Even union members, when polled, believe that votes should be held prior to certifying a union. This isn't just the view of employers, among whom it might not be a terribly big surprise—small employers in particular—but is also, we believe, the view of the general public and of current and past union members.

My final thoughts for you are that as long as dues remain mandatory, requiring unions to provide additional detailed information is certain to bring more transparency and accountability—certainly more costs, certainly more red tape, I don't deny that one bit—and that because secret ballot votes are so fundamental to our democratic processes, we would urge you to maintain them on this very important and sensitive issue in the employer-employee relationship.

Thank you.

[Derrick Hynes, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to all honourable members seated around this table today. It is with pleasure that I present some thoughts to you today on Bill C-4 on behalf of FETCO.

For those of you who are not aware, FETCO stands for Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications. With that mouthful of words, I'm sure you can appreciate why we tend to shorten our name to just FETCO.

FETCO member organizations are all federally regulated firms in the transportation and communications sectors. The common area of interest that binds us together is labour relations under the Canada Labour Code. We have existed as an employers' association for over 30 years. We are essentially the who's who in the federal sector, encompassing over 400,000 employees and representing many well-known firms such as Air Canada, Bell, CN, CP Rail, and Telus, to name just a few. Most of our member companies are heavily unionized and have a long and successful track record of tripartite engagement in federal labour relations, and I'll speak more on this issue a little later.

As you are all aware, Bill C-4 will repeal two pieces of legislation passed during the last Parliament, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. FETCO believes that both of these bills resulted from an inappropriate process, one that did not take advantage of a pre-existing and well-established tripartite approach to labour relations.

However, given its significant labour relations implications I will spend my short time with you today focused solely on Bill C-525, the union certification and decertification bill.

FETCO was heavily engaged in the process that brought C-525 through the parliamentary process and has spoken on the record on this bill on several occasions. If I can leave but two key messages with you today that sum up the FETCO position on Bill C-525, it would be the following. Please note that I do recognize these appear to be contradictory, and I hope to explain that throughout my presentation.

First, FETCO had and continues to have concerns regarding the manner in which Bill C-525 was enacted. Second, FETCO supports the basic principles proposed in Bill C-525.

I'm sure at this point some of you are scratching your heads wondering how we can simultaneously support Bill C-525, but at the same time have concerns regarding the process used to enact it in the first place. Please let me explain.

FETCO has consistently argued in concert with organized labour, I should add, that the process used to enact Bill C-525 was inappropriate. Bill C-525 brought in a revised certification and decertification process for all federally regulated organizations via the use of a private member's bill.

While we do not view the use of private members' bills as in any way undemocratic, we do feel they should not be used for changes to the Canada Labour Code. For decades, a meaningful, tripartite, consultative mechanism has existed for such changes, where the three key stakeholders—government, labour, and management—take a deliberate approach to changes under the code and its associated regulations by consulting extensively ahead of time.

Changes to the code should only be considered after a meaningful, upfront dialogue that contemplates all related implications and assesses any change within the greater context of the entire collective bargaining environment. By using this approach via a government bill, a greater degree of rigour is applied to the process. Committees tend to have access to research and analysis and can tap into key internal resources, such as the expertise that exists within the labour program at ESDC and across other government departments.

While a private member's bill does proceed through parliamentary committee and the related process, it does not receive the same level of scrutiny as can be achieved through a meaningful consultation with all stakeholder that is represented by a government-wide approach. We have a system that works. Our suggestion is that we use it.

This brings me to my second key takeaway, which may sound contradictory, but FETCO ultimately did support the basic principles presented in Bill C-525 and is supportive of these changes within the federal collective bargaining environment.

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to read into the record today some comments presented by FETCO to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when Bill C-525 was being contemplated in December 2014:

Bill C-525 is a private member's bill. In its original form, it was unfairly constituted and prejudicial to unions and employees seeking [union] certification. In its original form, C-525 required that in order for a union to be certified, it would have to demonstrate in a secret ballot vote that the union had an absolute majority of employees in the appropriate bargaining unit as opposed to the majority of employees in the appropriate bargaining unit casting ballots in favour of the union. FETCO is [most] pleased that Bill C-525 was modified substantially...by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources...before passing third reading in the [House of Commons].

FETCO members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card check system for the purpose of determining if the union is to become the certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles. It allows each and every employee to express their true wishes without undue influence or disclosure of how they cast their ballot. This is the mechanism that is used for the electoral process in Canada. It is the fairest process. ...Furthermore, this certification process by means of a secret ballot vote based on the majority of votes cast is the standard that currently exists in the labour relations legislation in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan. It is a widely accepted method to determining certification in Canada. It is not new. The provisions in Bill C-525 regarding the threshold number of employees required before the Canada Industrial Relations Board will order a certification vote or a decertification vote is 40%. This is appropriate. These provisions are equally fair and are consistent with the rules for establishing certification and decertification vote thresholds in the various provincial jurisdictions. In sum, FETCO supports Bill C-525 as currently written.

Honourable members, I hope that you now better understand the genuine dilemma that Bill C-525 represents and represented for FETCO members. While we objected to the process used to enact it, we certainly supported the final language that was revealed following committee reviews in the House of Commons and the Senate.

Bill C-525 contains three key principles that FETCO continues to support.

First, it ensured that a secret vote would be required for all union certification and decertification efforts. The secret vote is fundamental in our democratic society. We cannot think of another approach that is more open and fair to employees when making these important choices.

Second, it ensured that unionization could not be achieved solely by the use of signed union cards. Employees were free to vote their conscience secretly, without fear of coercion. This approach is consistent with the majority of Canadian jurisdictions.

Third, it set the threshold for requiring a vote for certification or decertification at 40% of those that sign union cards. This is also consistent with the majority of Canadian jurisdictions. The 40% threshold is required in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. In fact, 45% is required in British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

Bill C-525 brought the federal system in line with the majority of other jurisdictions in the Canadian labour relations system covering the majority of employees in the country, and it brought the democratic secret vote. This is why it was and still is, for that matter, supported by FETCO.

Thank you for your time and for the privilege of speaking with you today.

Canada Labour Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address this piece of legislation.

I am taking a different approach to this in the sense that I used to be the labour critic in the Province of Manitoba. I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in 1988. At the time, controversial legislation called “final offer selection” was being proposed. Hansard will demonstrate that even back then I was afforded the opportunity to give my thoughts and views on labour legislation. I found out early in the game how important it was for government not to use political IOUs in order to please one group over another.

The Liberal government introduced Bill C-4 because we passionately believe that the previous Conservative government used the back door through private members' legislation, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Many interest groups and stakeholders from both sides acknowledged that. Our government, through Bill C-4, is rectifying a wrong made by the previous Conservative government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour commented on the New Democratic Party using a private member's bill. I understand and appreciate the arguments put forward by the previous speaker, but I am suspicious of New Democrats when it comes to labour legislation. Like all Liberal members, I believe in the important role that unions play and we do what we can to support our union brothers and sisters as much as possible, but we believe in fair play.

Let me go back to the provincial election in 1988. It is important that we recognize that industries regulated for labour are primarily at the provincial level and the federal level deals with regulations. Howard Pawley hoped to become the premier of Manitoba at that time. He sat down with a number of union representatives and said that, if the NDP formed government, it would bring in anti-scab legislation. He and the NDP made that commitment. The NDP became government, but it did not bring in anti-scab legislation because the then NDP premier argued that it would not be fair after all. Instead, the government brought in final offer selection legislation in its place. That is when I was elected, in that 1988 provincial election, and when the Conservatives took office they repealed the legislation. We sat until two o'clock in the morning in committee debating this. Many union and non-union members made presentations about the benefits of final offer selection. We often heard about the NDP compromising itself by promising to bring in anti-scab legislation but not doing that and instead coming in with final offer selection. Final offer selection was disposed of because the numbers were not there for the Liberals and the NDP back then.

In 1999 the NDP regained power. One would have thought it would have brought back final offer selection or anti-scab legislation, but it did neither.

The reason I say this is that I believe we have to be more honest with our union brothers and sisters. We have to look at what is in the best interests of Canada as a whole and look at the worker and how we can enhance our workforce. We need to not only look at how we can protect workers but look at the different sides sitting at the table. That is what is being proposed by the Government of Canada today. The NDP and Conservatives have used labour relations as a wedge issue time and time again at the cost of union workers. I have witnessed it.

I did not tell the House about an amendment that was put forward by the Liberal Party in 1990, which would have improved final offer selection, but back then New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to get rid of it.

I am familiar with the games that are played between the Conservatives and the NDP with respect to labour. We in the Liberal Party are saying enough is enough. We need to do what is in the best interests of the worker and the—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to this particular piece of legislation on behalf of the party.

I would like to provide some perspective on a private member's bill that touches on a key component of the Canada Labour Code and one that would have a serious impact on federal labour relations in this country. Bill C-234 proposes to change the legislative provisions relating to whether federally regulated employers should be able to hire replacement workers during strikes or lockouts.

While most labour relations in Canada are regulated by the provinces, it must be underscored that part I of the Canada Labour Code governs labour relations in the federal private sector. It applies to some key industries in our economy, for example, sectors including international and interprovincial railway and road transportation, maritime and air transportation, as well as telecommunications and banking. Some crown corporations, such as Canada Post Corporation, are also covered under the code.

There is a lot of history behind this particular issue. For example, in 1995, the then minister of labour established a task force that did extensive public consultations on part I, which is the industrial relations part of the Canada Labour Code. Those consultations included labour, employer, and government stakeholders, as well as academics and others. The issue of replacement workers was part of those discussions.

Labour and employer stakeholders held then, and hold now, very different views on the issue. In fact, the task force report, entitled “Seeking a Balance”, noted, “No issue divides the submissions we received more than the issue of replacement workers.”

That report formed the basis of the comprehensive amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code that came into force in 1999. It is important to note that the provision that exists now was recommended by the task force as a reasonable compromise between the competing views of employers and unions. That had been decided in 1999.

The provision of part I of the Canada Labour Code already limits the use of replacement workers in federal private sector industries. The code balances the union's right to strike with the employer's right to attempt to continue operating during a work stoppage. As the report recommends, “There should be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers.” However, the report identified using replacement workers in an attempt to remove the union from the workplace as an unfair labour practice, and rightfully so. This is known as undermining the union representative capacity.

At the time of the task force report, the current provision in the code was considered to be an acceptable middle ground between the position of the federally regulated employers and the unions that represent employees. This provision is considered a compromise and a balance between union and employer interests.

While Bill C-234 may intend to improve labour relations, it has the potential to upset the carefully crafted balance of rights and responsibilities between unions and employers under the code.

It is not only the content of Bill C-234 with which I take issue, but I would also like to underline a flaw in how we have been asked to consider such an important change for federally regulated employees and employers.

Consideration of such a measure should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders who are regulated by the Canada Labour Code as this requires the views of those who stand to be affected by it. To be clear, a private member's bill does not allow for the proper consultations, and it does not provide sufficient opportunity for all stakeholders to express their views.

In the past, both labour and employer organizations have been highly critical of changes being made to federal labour relations legislation through the use of private members' bills without prior consultation with the stakeholders. Members will no doubt remember that the government recently took bold steps to correct inequities introduced in Bill C- 377 and Bill C-525, which upset the balance of rights and responsibilities between federally regulated employers and unions.

Trade unions play a fundamental role in the relations between employers and employees. Unions work to ensure that their members receive fair wages and good working conditions in fair, healthy, and safe work environments. These bills put unions at a disadvantage and we believe they must be repealed.

Just like the current Bill C-234, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were private members' bills that were not subject to rigorous consultations. This is not the right way to approach such matters. We should not be looking at amending part I of the Canada Labour Code on a piecemeal basis. We believe in an open and transparent approach to labour relations, one that promotes stability and fairness.

Major changes to labour relations legislation have always been preceded by consultation between government, unions, and employers. I referred previously to the 1995 task force, which included an extensive consultative process, which was followed by ministerial consultations on the recommendations included in the task force report. However, this has not happened in the case of Bill C-234, and any changes on such a divisive issue would certainly need consultations with all stakeholders.

We cannot support Bill C-234 because it does not match our standards of openness and transparency in labour relations in this country. As I pointed out before, the code ensures balance between a union's right to strike and that of an employer to attempt to continue operating during a work stoppage. It is part of the balance between rights and responsibilities of employers and unions under the code.

Good labour relations are key elements of an economic system and indeed to the prosperity of this country. We have a long tradition in this country of labour legislation and policy designed to promote the common well-being by encouraging free collective bargaining and constructive dispute settlement. We believe in the strength of co-operation to develop good relations between employers and workers. If legislative changes are to be considered for part I of the code, let us do it the right way, through real and meaningful consultation and engagement with unions, employers, and stakeholders.

I know that in the member's comments reference was made to support from United Steelworkers. Let me read into the record the statement made by Ken Neumann when he was testifying before committee on Bill C-525. Mr. Neumann is the national director of United Steelworkers. He said, speaking about the past Conservative government:

We've seen this government operate in this way before - introducing major changes to the hallmarks of our democratic society through backdoor private member's bills. The Canadian Labour Congress rightly asks why tamper with a system that's working? The federal system is respected and supported, as a result of a consultative process that's been followed for decades for amending the Labour Code.

That comes from Ken Neumann from United Steelworkers. That is his opinion.

We have long recognized this in this country. Again, I would like to underline the fact that in the last four years we have seen it even more so. Labour legislation in this country has to be referred to a tripartite system, one that is consultative and is built through consensus. That is what we are committed to, to ensure that our labour laws are fair and balanced and that they represent the needs of employers and the rights and best interest of employees. That is what we are committed to and that is what we intend to deliver as a government.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here once again to discuss my goals as set out in the mandate letter given to me by the Prime Minister and to discuss the main estimates. As members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, you provide an extremely important venue to complete our work and to provide value to the parliamentary process.

Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge that we're here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

First, I'd like to tell you about my areas of responsibility. As you know, I'm the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. Under my purview, the Department of Employment and Social Development manages a large number of important programs for all Canadians across the country. These include support for federally regulated workers, support during these challenging times for people who have unfortunately lost their jobs, and support for education and training to get Canadians back to work.

I will begin by discussing our plans and objectives for the employment insurance program, given that the global drop in commodity prices has resulted in job losses in our country, especially in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, thereby increasing the number of workers who are seeking employment insurance.

The government believes it's absolutely critical that we have an EI system that can adapt to our changing labour market across the nation to make sure that Canadians get the help they need when they need it. To that end, our recent budget unveiled a series of new national measures. Let me repeat that: national measures, all across the country, for all people from coast to coast to coast.

Currently, many new workers find it difficult to access EI support when they lose their jobs because of higher EI requirements that restrict access for new entrants and re-entrants—who are known as “NERE”—to the labour market. Budget 2016 proposes to eliminate these provisions, these NERE restrictions, which impact so many young and new Canadians, so that they will meet the same requirements as other claimants in their regions. This improvement will mean that roughly 50,000 additional claimants will become eligible for EI benefits.

Effective January 1, 2017, we are also going to reduce the EI waiting period—or the deductible—from two weeks to one week, at the time when those who are unemployed often need it most. This will ease some of the pressures on individuals at the front end of their claim when they become unemployed or leave work temporarily due to health or family pressures.

We are extending and expanding the “working while on claim” project. This helps individuals by allowing them to earn some extra income without losing their benefits so that they always benefit from accepting work.

I am pleased to say that on a national basis we are extending the duration of EI work-sharing agreements from a maximum of 38 weeks to 76 weeks.

We will also be investing $92 million to hire more EI call centre agents to shorten wait times, shorten claim processing, and expand better service to every Canadian.

Finally, we are going to reverse some of the negative changes made in 2012 by the previous Conservative government. These measures pressured unemployed workers to accept work at lower rates of pay while having to commute for longer times, away from their communities and families.

Mr. Chair, let me turn for a few moments to the many unemployed Canadians who need help right now, particularly those who live in parts of the country hardest hit by the plunge in commodity prices.

As you know, we have economic regions that have begun experiencing a sudden, sharp, and sustained increase in unemployment. To cushion the shock, we're introducing some targeted changes such as extending EI regular benefits by five weeks, up to a maximum of 50 weeks. We are also proposing an additional 20 weeks of EI regular benefits for long-tenured workers in these regions to a maximum of 70 weeks.

While providing this temporary help, we are also helping to build a workforce that can shift towards a high-skilled jobs environment and create the workforce we need. We will enhance training employment supports by investing a total of $175 million in 2016-17 in the labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories. We will also create a framework to strengthen the role of union-based apprenticeship training with an investment of $85.4 million over five years.

These investments will ensure that Canadians get the skills to pursue opportunities for a better future.

Canada's youth minister, our Prime Minister, has given me the opportunity in my mandate to improve the future of Canada's young people, through education and job creation. I'm happy to say that our government is already creating more jobs for students. We recently increased the annual budget for the Canada summer jobs program by $113 million a year for each of the next three years, for a total of $339 million, which will double the number of jobs created to nearly 70,000. We are investing another $165 million this year for the youth employment strategy.

As our population ages, our country's prosperity will depend on young Canadians getting the education they need to prepare for jobs of today and tomorrow. To incentivize students to work while they study, we'll introduce a flat-rate student contribution to determine eligibility for loans that will allow students to work without worrying about jeopardizing their grant or loan. The rising costs have made getting a post-secondary education more of a burden to families.

To help change that, we will expand Canada summer grants. Low-income students, middle-income students, and part-time students will see grants increase by 50%. This measure will provide assistance of $1.5 billion over the next five years. After consultations with provinces and territories, we plan to expand eligibility for Canada student grants, so that even more students can receive non-repayable assistance.

We also want to ensure that students leaving post-secondary education will have a bit more flexibility on when they have to pay back those worrisome loans. To this end, we will be easing the rules on Canada student loan repayment by ensuring that no borrower will be required to make any repayment until they are earning at least $25,000 per year.

In my province, and in my hometown of Winnipeg, an effort to support skills and employment training for indigenous peoples is key. The budget proposes a new investment to train Métis, first nation, and Inuit peoples for jobs supporting their communities, including housing construction, water treatment, and local administration. Over the next year, the government will consult with stakeholders, including indigenous organizations and employers, to work towards renewing and expanding the aboriginal skills employment training strategy.

Finally, I'd like to turn to my responsibilities and mandate as Canada's labour minister. Our recently tabled Bill C-4 proposes to repeal two mean-spirited, unfair bills passed by the former Conservative government. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 forced labour organizations to provide very detailed, wasteful, and unnecessary financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency and made it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents in the federal jurisdiction.

When it comes to a modern workplace, more and more Canadians are struggling to balance work and their personal and family responsibilities outside of work. This is why we committed to amending the Canada Labour Code to allow federally regulated workers to formally request flexible work arrangements, or flex leave.

Budget 2016 reiterates our commitment to explore ways to ensure that hard-working middle class Canadians are better able to manage their work and personal lives.

With that, Mr. Chair, I conclude my preliminary remarks.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear that the member for Cariboo—Prince George has already made up his mind that he will not support Bill C-7, when it has not even been at committee to be reviewed.

That is very surprising, considering his very eloquent remarks on the rich tapestry and history of the RCMP and his deep regard for the force. Our government is respecting the Supreme Court ruling that respects the right to be represented in bargaining by members and reservists of the RCMP. That is exactly what this bill is all about.

The member's concerns are actually about another bill, Bill C-4, which rolls back changes that were made without any consultation in Bill C-525, which force a one-size-fits-all bargaining system on the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Why would the member want to have that when he wants a vote free of reprisal? That is exactly the purpose of the board. They have the tools to ensure that. They have options for how to implement a vote. They have laws that support freedom from any intimidation. They have penalties and orders they can impose. They review a vote, whether it is done by card check or mandatory vote or secret ballot.

Why would the member want a one-size-fits-all approach, pre-judge this very important legislation, and be prepared to vote against legislation that is all about respecting the members of the RCMP?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, how often do members think those residents would be telling the person at the front door the truth? How would we feel here about it? When there is a card check system vote and they are asking people in a union shop, for example, to raise their hand while everyone else is standing there looking at them, how is that fair and democratic? Compare that to the opportunity for a secret ballot where, with their own conscience, we would know people are making a decision they feel is right for them, with no coercion, no intimidation, and no one influencing their decision.

On that fact, after an election most of us in this House go and speak to our residents. We have all had the discussion at the coffee table or the dinner table about who they are going to vote for the next day. No one wants to tell. They are very reluctant to tell. That is something very private, something we need to hold to ourselves; and we should respect that decision and the foundation and importance of that secret ballot.

I have heard that story over and over again from people in residences. Canadians expect privacy when they are casting their ballots, and that is something we should embrace.

Voting is a very personal action. People cherish the privacy of marking their ballot in secret without intimidation, influence, or coercion. Why would we not make the same basic right for the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day when they put on their uniform to go to work? What could possibly be easier and more straightforward than a secret ballot? There is absolutely nothing more simple: one person, one vote. That is how it should be. Open, transparent results ensure confidence that a true decision was made whether certifying or decertifying a union.

The Liberal Party campaigned on accountability and transparency. By their keeping secret ballots out of this legislation, it is again obvious that the Liberals have no intention of keeping those election promises. Accountability and transparency seem to have gone the way of commitments to a $10 billion deficit, balanced budgets, and dinosaurs. That seems to be all in the same viewpoint of election promises broken time and again.

At the federal level, the previous Conservative government introduced extensive reforms to ensure Canadians have trust in their political institutions. That included legislation like Bill C-525, which ensures union members have the right to a secret ballot. That legislation recognized the right to peaceful association—a right that extends to all workers in Canada, whether they should wish to have a union represent them or not. That is a right that should be passed on to the RCMP as well, if its members choose to form a union. This choice is theirs and theirs alone to make.

The previous card check system for federally regulated industries required 50% plus one to sign a union membership card. It is very clear, despite what my colleague on the other side of the floor would like to say, that this is open to abuse. It has been open to abuse, and certainly there are many stories where employees have been pressured to sign a union card against their will. I know the member rattled off different laws that were in place, but just because a law is written down, I am certain all of us can agree that does not mean it is followed. I am sure we all understand that there are many opportunities where card check systems in place definitely open the door to intimidation and coercion.

To wrap it up, the message I want to get to here is very clear. Members of the RCMP each and every day put their lives on the line to protect our rights, our freedoms, and our democracy. We have one chance here. We are at the root opportunity here in dealing with collective bargaining with the RCMP. This is an opportunity for us here to stand up with our RCMP officers and stand up to protect their democratic rights, and the Liberals will not do it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to follow my respected colleague from Yellowhead. I thank him for sharing his time with me. I have a lot of respect for his 35 years of service with the RCMP, protecting the communities of Canada. We are truly blessed to have him as a member of our caucus.

I want to talk a bit about some of the history. I am very blessed to have a deep RCMP and North West Mounted Police history in my riding. Fort Macleod was founded in 1874. It is now a world-renowned museum of the North West Mounted Police in western Canada. Downtown Fort Macleod is now a provincial historic site, as well as the museum.

There is also the Alberta Provincial Police Building in Crowsnest Pass, which was founded in 1918. I am proud to say that the Conservative government last year contributed $100,000 to the refurbishing of that police building to protect its history. I am sure many people in the House would like to know that Corporal Stephen Lawson was killed in front of that building in the early 1900s. One of the accomplices in the shooting was Florence Lassandro. She was convicted of that murder and was the first and only woman ever hanged in Alberta's history. That is a bit of Alberta's history.

Today I want to speak to Bill C-7 and say how disappointed I am. On this side of the House, I think many of us are. We continue to have to challenge the Liberal government on the importance of accountability and transparency when it comes to unions, and specifically the importance of a secret ballot.

Members of the RCMP are out there each and every day protecting our rights, freedoms, and democracy. Why we would miss this opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and protect their democratic rights when we have the chance to do so? It is disappointing that we are missing this opportunity by putting forward Bill C-7, which does not include the right to a secret ballot. I ask the Liberal government to send the bill back in order to add the provision of a secret ballot for RCMP members when they are faced with the question of certifying or not certifying as a union. Simply put, that is the right thing to do.

Members of the RCMP have the democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot vote when certifying or decertifying as a union. Every one of us in the House was elected by way of secret ballot. Every member of a provincial or municipal government was elected by way of secret ballot. It only makes sense that we would be sharing that democratic right, not a privilege but a democratic right, to a secret ballot at all levels, including unions.

A secret ballot is the cornerstone of our democracy and at the heart of Canadian values. However, the Liberals have shown again, with the combination of Bill C-7 and Bill C-4, that they see the right of secret ballot as being somehow obsolete. In many cases, they do not feel it is democratic at all, which I find to be extremely disappointing and concerning.

This is about balance and creating a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice they feel is best suited to their needs. The Supreme Court decision speaks to allowing the RCMP the right to associate for the purpose of collective bargaining. I think all of us in the House agree and support that decision. However, we also believe this is an opportunity to vote by way of a secret ballot, and it should be a privilege and democratic right that the RCMP have this opportunity.

Our specific intent has always been to preserve the democratic rights of Canadian workers through increasing public confidence in unions, but to have that confidence, unions must operate in a transparent and accountable way without any chance of undue influence or coercion. Our democratic system was designed with a secret ballot as its keystone, specifically to maintain the integrity of the vote and to allow citizens to cast their ballot in privacy.

The jobs minister has made it very clear that she does not believe in the integrity of a secret ballot. In fact, she has said that the card-check system is a much more democratic way to certify or decertify a union. Recently in committee meetings, she was asked why she would repeal Bill C-525, which gave employees the democratic right to a secret ballot to decertify or certify a union. I will read this quote, because her answer was very clear on where she and the Liberal Government stood in terms of democracy. She said:

The card-check system is a perfectly democratic way of gauging support as it ensures that an absolute majority of employees support the union, not just those who come out and vote.

Our jobs minister is saying in committee that a card check system is a much more democratic way to decide if a majority of people support whatever that issue is, over a secret ballot; that somehow when people actually show up to vote for something, they are not legitimate.

I went around door-knocking in my riding, as I know most of the members of this House did as well in their ridings as we went through the election period. If I went up to ask those people for their vote right then, and I wanted them to sign a piece of paper that would tell me that they voted for me while I was standing there, how often do you feel that person would be telling the truth?

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member's constituents voted for him, they did so by secret ballot in exercising their democratic right. Moreover, when unions choose a leader, they do it by secret ballot. When unions make decisions on whether or not to go on strike, they do it by secret ballot.

I find it very unusual that the Liberal government basically said in Bill C-525 and the current bill that secret ballots do not matter, even though these ballots do matter in many provinces. How can it justify taking such a profoundly personal decision on behalf of our RCMP officers and not giving them the respect and the right of a secret ballot?

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-7. In my riding of London North Centre we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ontario headquarters, as well as the RCMP London, Ontario, detachment. Combined, these two offices have approximately 165 regular members. Many of these individuals are my constituents, I am proud to say.

I am also very proud of the work these men and women do in keeping Canadians safe every single day. With that in mind, it is an honour to be part of this debate and take a stand on behalf of these men and women, the members and reservists of the RCMP.

The bill before us today would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I emphasize that point. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years, but it is a right that has been denied to the members and reservists of the RCMP, individuals who over the last 143 years have contributed so much to our proud, strong, and free nation. This bill would rectify that issue.

This bill is a clear and reasoned response to the Supreme Court ruling of January 16, 2015. The court affirmed in that decision that subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”. The court also determined that, “the current labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence”.

It is, therefore, my pleasure to support this bill today, a bill that would provide RCMP members and reservists with freedom of choice and independence from management while still recognizing their unique operational reality. The bill in question is a product of careful consideration of the result of consultations with key stakeholders, the first with regular members of the RCMP and the second with provinces, territories, and municipalities that have policing agreements with the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has a number of important features, and I will now go over those briefly.

It would provide for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. Consistent with other police forces across this country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike. This was the strong preference of those who participated in the online consultation.

The bill would also provide for a single national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank and reservists; and the RCMP bargaining agent, should one be certified, would have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Again, regular members showed clear support for these provisions. The bill would also exclude officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above from representation. Finally, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining units, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement.

The bill before us today is consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. Take, for instance, Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation bill, tabled last April by the previous government. It gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system onto the public service.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act was originally passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and bargain collectively. It is fundamental to ensuring collaborative efforts between the parties and to improving the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

I have many public service employees in my riding of London North Centre. In fact, I had the privilege of meeting with some of their leadership last week and they made their voices heard.

The actions of the previous government, to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system while ignoring the collective bargaining process, were unfortunate and disrespectful. Our government made it clear that we would not be party to an approach that disregards the process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements on the terms and conditions of employment. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in collective bargaining, and the bill before us today honours our belief in this right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations, yet over the last few years, many fundamental labour rights have been rolled back. We can just look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which would both have changed how unions could be certified and decertified, and would place new financial reporting requirements on them.

These bills were passed without the traditional employer, union, and government consultation process used for labour relations law reform. The result has been that it is now more difficult for unions and the employer to bargain collectively in good faith. We need, instead, to ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments. To that end, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 would restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed prior to June 16, 2015. This bill would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove the unnecessary requirements on labour organizations and labour trusts for the public reporting of financial information.

As hon. members are well aware, legislation is already in place to ensure that unions make such financial information available. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, for instance, requires unions to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, rendering these additional reporting requirements unnecessary. The bill before us today is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations.

Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long exercised by all other police forces in Canada. The bill would respect that right while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due.

I again would like to thank those members and reservists of the RCMP for their dedicated service to our country. I am proud to have such a strong RCMP presence in my riding of London North Centre, and I commend RCMP members for going to work each and every day with the safety of all Canadians and all Londoners at the forefront of their minds.

To that end, I ask all members to show their support for members and reservists of the RCMP by voting in favour of this bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Regina—Lewvan for his kind words about my father.

There is one point I will make to him, and I say this in all seriousness. I am not trying to be flippant or rude, but he should know, now that he represents it, that RCMP Depot is pronounced “deh-po”, not “dee-po”. If he speaks with any members of the RCMP, current or past—and we have members in this place—they will make that distinction very clearly. He would be insulting members of the RCMP if he went onto their grounds and spoke about the great work that dee-po does, because it is not dee-po; it is deh-po. That is point number one.

Second, I would just simply point out to my friend and colleague that we are not saying we are against collective bargaining whatsoever. We are just saying that whatever votes should be taken should be done in a secret environment. What is wrong with determining whether or not members want to be unionized by letting them vote in a secret environment?

Let us get rid of the intimidation. We can probably share stories, on both the management side and the union side, of intimidation and pressure tactics that have been used over the years. We are both very familiar with that. To avoid that is a simple solution: allow members to determine their own fate by a secret ballot. That is all we are saying.

That is all Bill C-525 did. It was to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow members to determine their own fate for collective bargaining by a secret ballot. Absolutely nothing is wrong with that, in my view.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I have good news for the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Under this legislation, Bill C-7, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will have both tools available—either a secret ballot or a card system—and it can apply the one it believes will give the fairest and most representative outcome.

I do not even want to say how many times the member has made allegations that are simply not true. This is available, and it will be a neutral board. There will not be employer interference or other interference. A neutral board of up to 12 members would determine which of the tools would be appropriate.

I want to ask the member this question. Bill C-525, which he was saying such nice things about, was brought forward by the Conservative government with no consultation, yet with evidence from their own research—which they hid—that suggested that bill was going to undermine labour relations and unions. That was on the one side.

On the other side we have Bill C-7, which would give a neutral board options for how to have the votes held so that they can do it in the interests of the RCMP members and there has been full consultation by RCMP members.

Which one is the more democratic? Which one gives the most freedom of choice of those two options?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your assistance in trying to get the chamber a bit more organized and a little more quiet. It is surprising, because normally when I stand to speak, members opposite hang on every word. Therefore, it was a little disturbing to find out here were actually people in here who did not want to hear what I had to say.

When I concluded my remarks prior to question period, I was in the midst of telling all members about my history both with the RCMP and the union movement in Canada.

In particular, with the union movement, I mentioned that my father had been a senior member of the United Steelworkers of America. In fact, he was the western Canadian head of the United Steelworkers of America. He trained Ken Neumann, who is now the national director of the United Steelworkers of America. Therefore, I have an intimate knowledge of the union movement.

I recall my father taking me on many occasions to union meetings when I was extremely young. I was never quite sure why he did that. It was either (a) an obligation to his babysitting commitment to my mother, or (b) he was trying to groom me to become a labour representative or a union representative such as himself. I suppose, in retrospect, if it was (a), he succeeded admirably and if it was (b), he failed miserably. Nonetheless, I was able to observe many things from these meetings, these union gatherings that I went to.

One of the things that struck me then, and it certainly continues to strike me now, was the fact that in the vast majority of cases whenever there was a vote to be cast at a union meeting, whether it would be a local union or a larger gathering of several locals, the votes were always public. I could not understand that because it was obviously something I believed, even at a young age, should be done in private.

However, I also saw the opposite side of the coin. Back in the early 1960s, when my father tried to organize a potash mine in Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, he would go down there with sign-up cards and get a number of the workers in the potash mine to sign those cards indicating their preference to unionize. Then mysteriously many times those same members who signed the cards would no longer be employees of the potash mine. That was pure and simple intimidation.

I have seen intimidation on both sides of the ledger. I have seen union members try to intimidate or at least pressure some of their fellow co-workers into voting in a particular manner. I also know from first-hand experience that there has been pressure or intimidation from the management side to try to influence the vote of certain workers. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. I think most Canadians would feel that it is as an affront to natural law, justice and absolute fairness in our country.

The way to get over that is to have secret ballots. If union members were able to vote freely according to their own beliefs in a secret ballot environment, intimidation would not play a part in this whole process. Management would be unable to successfully intimidate employees and union members would not be successful in their attempts to pressure or intimidate their co-workers. A secret ballot provides the assurance that each and every union member would be able to vote according to his or her conscience and beliefs.

For example, I have seen strike votes where unions get together in a public environment and have to vote in favour or against a strike by a show of hands. I have experienced first-hand some very serious pressure and intimidation. If union leadership wanted a strike to occur, many members who may not want to go on strike because they could not afford to take a reduced salary or no salary at all because they had mouths to feed at home were pressured into voting in favour of their union boss' belief that a strike was necessary. That is just as unacceptable as it would be if a management member tried to intimidate a union member or a non-union member into voting against certification.

Secret ballots are the absolute solution and remedy to intimidation factors and tactics, yet the government feels otherwise. For some reason, it feels that Bill C-525, which allowed for secret balloting in either union certification or decertification, should be eliminated, and that changes to the Canada Labour Code should be enacted to go back to the old system. I just cannot agree with that.

Although I believe that Bill C-7 is on balance a worthwhile piece of legislation containing many provisions that I agree with, the single provision that does not allow for secret balloting on union certification or decertification makes it impossible for me to support this particular piece of legislation.

One could present an argument that the system that had been in place for many years, whereby petitions could be circulated and cards could be signed, was appropriate, but that certainly has not proven to be the case in the majority of provinces across Canada. In fact, in the majority of provinces in Canada, provincial legislation deems that secret balloting must take place in determining either certification or decertification of a union, and it has worked well.

I could also share from personal experience conversations I have had with many rank-and-file union members, who have expressed the same concern that I am expressing here. That is the concern that their right to vote freely has been impugned because of the public nature of voting within many unions.

Let me simply say that while Bill C-7 contains many solid provisions that support the RCMP and allow its members to determine their own fate when it comes to unionizing and enjoying collective bargaining, and while many of those provisions we heard earlier in debate today protect them on many other fronts, the single fact that the government does not see fit to allow one of the most fundamental tenets in democracy, that being secret ballots, makes the bill absolutely unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to all my colleagues on the Conservative benches.

What is the solution? Frankly, we have heard many times before, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, that committees should take a stronger and more active role in determining legislation in the House. That is a position that I quite frankly agree with and support, so we are simply asking that an amendment be considered at committee that would allow this legislation to include the provision of secret balloting before being presented to the House in its final form for third reading.

I do not know whether or not that is going to happen. I could assume that we will be able to move an amendment at committee and engage in debate, but I sense quite strongly that despite the nice words from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, their committee members will be whipped and instructed to vote against any amendment that the official opposition brings forward in relation to secret ballots.

Once again, I find it extremely difficult to stand in this place and completely understand how the government can defend that position. Every one of the members of this place was elected by secret ballot. The Speaker of this chamber was elected by a secret ballot. Why is that the case? Why is it the case that in almost every democracy in the world, secret ballots have been accepted as the norm?

The government seems to be swimming upstream. Why is it doing that? Quite frankly, Liberals made a number of commitments during the election campaign to try to gather support from the union movement in Canada. One of them was the commitment to repeal Bill C-377 on union transparency. Another was the commitment to repeal Bill C-525, which allowed for secret balloting in certification and decertification votes. I suppose on the one hand they are keeping their commitment to their election campaign platform, but it flies in the face of any democratic institution that we know of.

There is one other point I would like to make. It has been mentioned several times in today's debate, primarily by the member for Spadina—Fort York, that Bill C-7 does not disallow the RCMP from determining their own fate when it comes to a secret ballot. He says they are able to vote for certification or non-certification by secret ballot if they so choose. That is factually incorrect. Because of the provisions in Bill C-4, which would change the Canada Labour Code, the RCMP would not be able to choose a secret ballot even if the majority of their members wanted to.

I would point out to the member for Spadina—Fort York that what he is attempting to state in the House as fact is absolutely just the opposite. It is factually incorrect. Because of Bill C-4, the RCMP would not have the ability to vote for union certification, should they desire, in a secret ballot environment.

I would suggest to all members of this place that if one were to poll rank-and-file members of the RCMP and simply ask them if they would be in favour of a secret ballot process for certification, the overwhelming majority of non-union members would state yes, they want a secret ballot.

I have spoken with a great many RCMP members. I have spoken in the House of my close relationship with many members, both present and past. Almost to a person, when speaking about the certification process, these members say they would prefer to have a secret ballot.

I firmly believe that whenever the vote is taken, RCMP members will vote to unionize. I have that sense. However, they should be allowed to do so in a secret ballot environment. They should be allowed to cast their ballot knowing full well that no one else will know how they voted. That is something we hold dear in our country, yet the Liberals seem to be reversing the democratic will of the people by forcing public notification of union certification votes. That is unacceptable.

I can assure the House that on this side, unless an amendment is brought forward to reverse the secret balloting provisions and allow for secret ballots in union certification votes, members on the Conservative side will be voting against Bill C-7, and for good reason.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years. RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years.

This bill would remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015. The court indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests. The court also stated that the current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse. Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government.

That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts among the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right.

We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined. Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, for example, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and will impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed without the usual consultation process involving employers, unions, and the government, which was used during the reform of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain in good faith.

Instead we must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves. To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015. Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to releasing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

In conclusion, the bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time. This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force.

It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve. To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that what the government is failing to mention is that in many provinces across this country, secret ballot is the system.

Actually, Bill C-525, which government members are speaking of as being a terrible piece of legislation, is the system in the province where I live, British Columbia, and I can tell my colleague the opposite. I worked in an environment where there was a certification union drive. It was a small health centre, and it divided the employers and employees. The fact that it was a secret ballot was a relief to the nurses and physiotherapists who worked there because their choice was private and was not the business of their colleagues. Ultimately, a decision was made.

It is not an unusual situation in this country to have a secret ballot.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her remarks, and particularly for highlighting the changes to the Government Employees Compensation Act, which, as the member mentioned, will provide more seamless support for injured RCMP members.

Unfortunately, the member then brought back the issue of the right to secret ballot for union members. She was part of a previous government that put forward Bill C-525. The very organizations that represent public sector members were almost unanimous in believing that it was the wrong way to go. They claim that the card check method is more likely to be free of employer interference. Therefore, suggesting that the right to secret ballot is good for employees is contrary to what the representatives of those employees are saying.

Why would the representatives of government employees speak out so strongly against Bill C-525 when it was passed, if it were in the interest of the employees, or in this case in the interest of RCMP members?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years.

However, RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years. My personal connection to this file dates back to almost the very beginning. My great-great-grandfather, Dr. Louis Paré, was the assistant chief surgeon for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.

This bill will remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015, which indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”.

The court stated, “The current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.”

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations held with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse.

Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members.

Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour rights in this country. Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government. That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts between the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined.

Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed absent any of the usual consultation involving employers, unions, and the government, which took place during the Public Service Staff Relations Act reform.

As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain effectively in good faith. We must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves.

To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015.

Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act, in order to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to filing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members on request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

The bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time.

This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve.

To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his informed question.

As we heard earlier today in the House, the issues regarding whether or not the rights provided under Bill C-525 would continue or not is dependent on separate legislation. It is not the legislation we are talking about here.

What we are talking about here is whether or not the RCMP gets these narrow rights for collective bargaining that are required by the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which needs to be implemented before May 16 in order to prevent the application of the current Public Service Labour Relations Act from applying to RCMP members.

In order to avoid that unfortunate result, we are putting forward legislation that addresses that fine point of the collective bargaining rights mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The issue as to whether or not the members of the RCMP choose of their own accord to adopt a process within their collective bargaining rights that requires a secret ballot would be up to them, and indeed if the bill currently before the House regarding the repeal of Bill C-525 does not achieve royal assent before this one, my understanding is that the current regime as it exists now would apply to the certification, or not, of any collective bargaining agent being proposed under this new regulatory regime.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I thank the House for this opportunity to explain why Bill C-7 is a constructive and responsible development in federal labour relations.

If passed, this legislation would allow RCMP members and reservists to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent independent of RCMP management. The key features of the bill include the requirement that the RCMP bargaining agent have as his primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; the exclusion of officers, those of inspector rank and above, from representation; and the designation of the renamed federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board as the administrative tribunal for matters relating to the RCMP bargaining unit as well as grievances related to the collective agreement, should one be affected.

The bill would provide for binding arbitration as the means to resolve impasses, in light of the essential nature of the work performed by the RCMP.

As a standard in federal labour relations, the bill would require that, to be certified as a bargaining agent, an employee organization would need the support of a majority of RCMP members in a single national bargaining unit.

The labour relations regime that this bill would create marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the RCMP. For the first time, RCMP members and reservists would have the same constitutional rights as other Canadians concerning collective bargaining. It is time the RCMP had the opportunity to decide whether to exercise these rights itself.

Our national mounted police have a storied past in Canada in the settlement and development of our country and in keeping peace across the land for almost a century and a half. Since its beginning in 1873, when the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police was introduced in the House by then prime minister John A. Macdonald, the RCMP has been an integral part of our history, indeed our culture. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin in Manitoba, to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch's passage through the Northwest Passage, to the vital roles in World War I and World War II, the RCMP has played instrumental roles in Canadian history.

Yet despite their long history, this legislation would be the first time these employees would have the right to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. This is a right guaranteed to all Canadians by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a right the RCMP defends and should also enjoy.

Members of the RCMP work with the goal of serving Canada and protecting Canadians. They are the people who protect the Governor General, the prime minister and other ministers of the crown, visiting royalty and dignitaries, and diplomatic missions. They are our neighbours, who participate in international policing efforts, safeguard the integrity of our borders, and provide counterterrorism and domestic security. They are the Canadians who enforce our federal laws against commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and organized crime.

This legislation would help support those who support us.

The bill also acknowledges the importance of collective bargaining in the development of Canadian society. Since it was officially recognized in 1944, collective bargaining has helped lift many Canadians out of economic insecurity and poverty. Working Canadians in both English and French Canada have a long tradition of organizing themselves to negotiate for better working conditions and more secure lives for themselves and their families. Their struggles and triumphs have been essential to Canada's development.

Our government recognizes that collective bargaining and Canadians' fundamental freedoms are vital to a healthy democracy in which people can pursue their livelihoods with a sense of fairness, security, and professionalism.

We promised to restore fair and balanced laws that acknowledge the importance of unions in Canada. That is what we have done, and that is what this legislation would continue to do.

In December, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These two bills amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015.

The government has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-59, which would have provided the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process. The bill we are considering today, which recognizes the right to collective bargaining for RCMP members and reservists, is another example of our commitment to fair and balanced labour relations.

Fair labour relations need to be available to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us. This legislation would do that, and it demonstrates our respect for fundamental liberties and the values at the heart of our democracy.

In 1873, parliamentarians like us voted in this House to establish the North-West Mounted Police. Today, we are here at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the RCMP. We are considering whether, 143 years later, the men and women in our national police force should have the same fundamental freedoms as so many other Canadians enjoy.

I urge all members to support the bill that would give them those freedoms, and to vote with us to help those who help others.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said we should have consulted more on Bill C-525. The ultimate consultation is a secret ballot vote. That is what Bill C-525 provided. It gave hundreds of thousands of employees in federally regulated workplaces the right to vote on whether or not they wanted to be represented by a particular union.

I note that the member, again, was afraid to say those two terrifying words: secret ballot. She could not say them, because she knows that her position and her government's position on this issue is totally untenable.

The Liberals put out a report yesterday in which they said that unionization rates are not as high when workers get a chance to vote on the question. That is not proof that they should have their rights stripped away from them. Just because workers do not vote the way Liberals and people on the union left want them to, does not mean they should lose the right to vote.

A worker should have the right to vote because it is an inherent basic right that dates back hundreds of years in our parliamentary system of democracy, and we on this side of the House of Commons will keep standing up for that right.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Carleton for his comments, and especially for confirming that Bill C-7 itself is reasonable, fair, and constructive, and we do look forward to comments and proposals at the committee level.

The member used most of his time to talk about Bill C-4 and to talk about Bill C-525, which his government put forward. I would like to remind the member that there was a huge amount of controversy and comment that Bill C-525 was pushed through without consultation, in contrast to Bill C-7, in which there was extensive consultation. That is one point I want to make before I get to my question.

The second is this. If the member is so proud of Bill C-525, which would require a mandatory vote, why did the previous government hide the report that its very own department tabled, showing that a mandatory vote is detrimental to labour relations in comparison to the card check method. The card check method does enable the public service members to indicate their preference around being represented by an employee organization.

I find it stunning, given that the Conservatives hid the evidence that suggested their bill was a bad one, and they never consulted on it, that this would be the key thing that the member would want to push for in this House. It just defies belief.

We have the NDP saying the card check is the only—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the discussion on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures. This act would deal with the right of our brave men and women of the red serge to bargain collectively.

This bill is a response to the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter last winter. The court gave the government a year from January 15 to implement a new collective bargaining regime for the RCMP. That deadline has since been extended. The ruling also indicated that it was the right of RCMP members to unionize based on paragraph 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it found that the existing staff relations representative program was an insufficient guarantee of that freedom of association.

I am generally satisfied with the contents of the bill itself. Let me explain why.

First, the bill would not require the RCMP to unionize. It creates a framework based on the existing certification laws under the public service employment legislation, whereby RCMP members can, if they so choose, form a union.

Furthermore, it would create certain protections that are necessary in light of the unique nature of employment within a policing organization. First, a prospective union must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. It cannot be affiliated with another bargaining agent or association that does not have that as its primary purpose, and it cannot be certified to represent any other group of employees. In other words, it would be an organization-wide bargaining unit represented by a single bargaining agent that would exclusively serve RCMP members and no other group of employees within the federal government. That is important, because if RCMP members choose to unionize, that union should be of RCMP members, by RCMP members, and for RCMP members for it to be truly representative and appropriate for a police force.

I am very proud of the police force that we have serving nationwide. The RCMP headquarters is here in Ottawa, close to my home. I am also very proud that Conservatives introduced legislation to help the RCMP do its job better and to keep our streets safe from crime and terrorism.

I should go on, though, to express my satisfaction with certain other limits that exist within this proposed legislation so that we can protect the work of the national police force. For example, policies on law enforcement techniques, transfers, appointments, promotions, disciplinary actions against RCMP members, and an RCMP officer's duty, dress, equipment, and medals are rightly left outside of the collective bargaining process and managed within the context of the RCMP Act. This bill would do that.

Next, the bill would, rightly, increase the size of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board from 10 to 12 members and insist that the two additional members have intimate knowledge of policing, so that when matters related to employment and labour relations within the RCMP come before the board, policing expertise will be found around the table. That is a reasonable proposal.

Furthermore, as with most police organizations across the country, under this legislation there will be no right to strike, for obvious reasons, because we need to protect our streets. Even in the event of a dispute or an impasse in labour relations, we cannot afford to have our officers off the street and on strike. The government has rightly recognized this fact and embedded that reality in the bill itself.

The bill itself is reasonable and fair. However, it cannot be looked at in isolation. Simultaneous to this bill, our House and our Parliament are debating and discussing another bill that would strip the democratic rights of federally regulated workers across the country.

Bill C-4 would remove the right of a secret ballot vote from federally regulated workers in matters of certification. It is important to be clear on what this means. It means that a union could take over a federally regulated workforce without there being a vote by the members who work in that workplace. In other words, thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues to and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to cast a vote. This is particularly alarming when it relates to the RCMP, an organization comprised of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic way of life. Therefore, it is a great irony that members of the RCMP, of all groups of employees, would be deprived the most basic democratic right, which is the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union.

The alternative to a secret ballot is a process called “card check”, where those people who want to take over a workplace and form a union go around with a petition and ask people to sign it. Then when they get 50% plus one of the employees to sign on, the board recognizes a majority and declares the union to be a bargaining agent. The obvious problem with that is intimidation. When workers have to put their names down on paper for all eyes to see, they risk being pressured unduly into favouring one side or another. It would be the equivalent of holding our national elections by a show of hands. Imagine that? The government said that our previous Bill C-525, which empowered workers with a secret ballot, was undemocratic.

The government is in the process of trying to change our electoral system. I wonder if the Liberals are simultaneously considering taking away the secret ballot from our general elections and replacing it with some sort of petition, or show of hands, or a card check as it is called. The parliamentary secretary earlier cited a report from the ministry of employment, showing the statistical reality that if workers were given the right to vote, they were less inclined to choose unionization. In other words, unions are not formed at as high a rate when people are given a chance to vote on the question as they are when people are forced to sign a card-check petition.

The government's problem is with the outcome. The government might not be happy that when workers are given the choice through a democratic vote, they opt not to unionize. However, that is the choice of the workers not the choice of the government. It is obvious that rates of certification would go up if those people doing the certifying were able to intimidate those they were trying to certify. Naturally, if they can show up on the doorsteps of employees at 10 p.m., ask them to sign a form and leave implied consequences for failing to do so, it is not surprising that unions are able to certify at higher rates than when the workers are given a chance to go into a voting booth and mark a secret ballot, exercising their true prerogative without anybody looking over their shoulders. However, that is not evidence of why we should take away their right to vote.

I was not particularly thrilled with the results of the last federal election, but I would never propose taking away the rights of Canadian voters to cast their ballot in secret as a result. It is their choice on how they vote. I could probably produce some sort of study to show that in some aspect of Canadian life voters would cast a ballot differently if they were given a chance to vote secretly on the matter. That is not a reason to take away the secret ballot.

The fact that workers or anyone votes differently when they have the right to do so secretly than they would if they were being watched by an authority figure is the very reason we need secret ballots. That is precisely the reason they were created, and they are a basic foundation not only of workplace democracy, but of Canadian democracy.

I would call on the government to recognize that fact and amend the bill to ensure the RCMP members will not be unionized without the right to vote on that unionization. In fact, Canadians agree with the right of secret ballot. It is basically in our democratic DNA. Secret ballot voting to certify union is not new or controversial. Ontario requires it. British Columbia requires it. Both of these provinces are currently represented by Liberal governments. Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador also require secret ballots and none of them is represented by the Conservative Party.

In administrations run by the NDP, the Liberals, the Saskatchewan Party, and others, we have secret ballot certifications in provincially regulated workplaces right across the country. In Quebec, Canada's second most unionized province, there is enormous support for secret ballot votes on certification.

One poll in August 2009 found that 71% of Quebeckers said that secret ballots should be required as a way of getting union certification. In the United States, polls have shown that 80% of people believe a secret ballot should be required for a union to form. Therefore, it cannot simply be seen south of the border as a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an issue that unites basically all North American public opinion in a vast majority who favour a secret ballot vote before a union can certify a workplace.

I would further identify the fact that if RCMP members are forced to join a particular union without having a chance to vote, that union will have difficulty establishing itself as a legitimate representative for the workers for which it will become the bargaining unit.

I also have warned the government of a political problem, and that is the reality that if it does deny employees in the RCMP the ability to conduct a secret ballot vote on unionization, it could very well learn of stories of intimidation within the workplace and those stories will reflect badly on the government's decision to strip that basic right from RCMP members.

I ask the government to consider an amendment to the legislation which would preserve the existing secret ballot formula that is found in public service labour relations legislation and ensure that the men and women who put on the uniform of the RCMP are given that basic human right in an eventual and inevitable certification drive. If they should select to unionize through that mechanism of a vote, then we, nationwide, should respect the result of that vote and respect the legitimacy of the union that it produces.

This is not a radical concept. We have five provinces in the country where provincially regulated workplaces certify their unions through secret ballot voting. It is a basic tenet of democracy.

Deep down I think members of the Liberal government understand and agree with that, and I will tell members why.

I have listened to all of the Liberals' comments with respect to their proposed repeal of Bill C-525, which is the bill the Conservative government passed to create secret ballot voting rights. However, the two words they never say when they are talking about that bill are “secret ballot”. They say that bill, which is now law, makes certification harder and decertification easier, but they do not say how. They say that it lowers unionization rates, but they do not say why. The bill really only does one thing. It replaces a card-check petition with a secret ballot vote. However, members on the government side can never actually bring themselves to utter those two words “secret ballot”.

Why? Because I think they know that if they were to openly argue against the right to vote for federally regulated workers on the grounds that it was not consistent with the government's view of labour relations, they would be laughed out of any room in our country. Everybody, coast to coast, acknowledges that democratic decision making has to happen through a secret ballot.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, you are chosen by secret ballot. We choose representation for our very House through a secret ballot vote. Every person in this room has a job today because they were elected by secret ballot. In fact, most unions elect their representatives through a secret ballot vote when they are certified. Everybody acknowledges that decisions of this magnitude made by a group of employees in a workplace should be done through a secret ballot, unless one has an ideological motivation to override the real will of the working people and to impose an outcome on them.

I think members will find that, in reality, those who are pushing for an end to secret ballot voting within the workplace on matters of unionization are those who are unhappy with the outcome that the secret ballot democratic vote would produce, which is no excuse. One cannot oppose democracy simply because one does not like the outcome to which it leads.

This is why we, as official opposition, congratulate the government for Bill C-7 in its own right, as a fair and balanced approach to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling on collective bargaining in the RCMP. However, I would ask that the bill be made better through an amendment that would allow the brave men and women who wear the RCMP uniform to be the masters of their own destiny by giving them the right to vote.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, who also touched on the comments by the member for Durham about Bill C-4, which is seeking to rescind Bill C-525. On this side of the House, we believe that Bill C-525 had a negative effect on rights and freedoms in the workforce.

It turns out, interestingly enough, that just when the former Conservative government was pushing forward Bill C-525, claiming that it would not adversely affect the rights of workers to unionize, its own internal labour program research department had conducted a study showing that it would adversely affect the union movement and its ability to organize. That study was hidden. Our minister, just yesterday, tabled that study at the human resources, skills, and social development committee.

I would like to ask my colleague what he believes the role of evidence should be, and the role of openness and transparency about this evidence, in making decisions around legislation for the benefit of the rights and freedoms of the Canadian workforce.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for Durham and all the work he does on behalf of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces. However, his comments confused me.

He is insisting on a secret ballot. Bill C-525, which the Conservative government brought forward, made it more difficult for employees to unionize, harder for unions to certify, and easier for unions to be decertified. That is the bill the Liberal government is repealing with Bill C-4, in which case the board will have a choice. It will be at the discretion of the board whether there will be a secret ballot or a card check, and the board can make sure that the members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

The secret ballot makes it harder for the collective bargaining process and provides less freedom for the members. Why is the member insisting on that as the mechanism?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Okay.

Bill C-525 was passed in April 2014. Is that correct?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Minister, and congratulations on your appointment.

I want to give a big shout-out to communities right across Canada, trade unions, labour unions, and citizens groups who spoke out against the two bills we're talking about, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Having come from the charitable sector and having experienced the previous government's sort of chill on the work we did, and of course the pieces under the guise of accountability around first nations, to me this is something along those lines that we need to repeal. We're on side, and I'm glad we're doing it. It's unfortunate we have to spend time going backwards to get where we were 10 years ago. However, I commend you on that.

You did bring up the Canada Labour Code, and I did want to take this opportunity to speak about that. We know the Canada Labour Code is about 60 years out of date. There was a review with some recommendations that were never implemented. I'm wondering if I could take this opportunity to ask the minister about a possible timeline or some idea for the committee about updating and modernizing the Canada Labour Code.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many supporters of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 have dismissed the criticism that they harm, not help, labour relations because they were done through private members' bills, outside the established tripartite process that has been followed for decades to make major amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

Could you explain to the committee the normal process to make major amendments and the importance of the process for stability in labour relations?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure for me to be here with so many of my colleagues who are obviously interested in one of the most important areas of our work, the welfare of Canadians.

One of the relationships that's very important is our relationship with organized labour, and so we will be talking about Bill C-4 and exactly that, building a stronger relationship with our organized labour movements in Canada.

I'm proud to be here today to present for your consideration 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. This bill, if passed by Parliament, would repeal Bills C-377 and C-525, both of which have been a detriment to unions and labour organizations.

Bill C-4 helps deliver on our commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country, one that balances the rights of unions with the rights of employers. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, two bills adopted during the last session of the 41st Parliament, upset that balance, and we believe must be repealed. These bills have serious ramifications for workers and unions in Canada. They put unions at a disadvantage. They also bypass the tripartite consultation process involving employers, unions, and governments, a process that has traditionally been used for federal labour relations law reform in Canada and which contributed to stable labour relations in the federal jurisdiction.

Fair, balanced, and evidence-based policies must be developed through real consultation and engagement. Our government believes this is essential for the prosperity of workers and employers, Canadian society, and the economy as a whole. When it comes to labour law reform in the future, we are firmly committed to meaningful engagement with unions, employers, other stakeholders, the provinces, the territories, and the Canadian public.

To make sure the federal labour policy works in the best interest of Canadians, we felt it was our duty to seek the repeal of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These bills were a solution in search of a problem. First let me explain what these bills do. I'll start with Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require all labour organizations and labour trusts, including those under provincial jurisdiction, to file detailed financial and other information with the Minister of National Revenue which would then be made publicly available on the CRA website.

This raises significant privacy concerns because it would include detailed information on organizations, assets, and general financial health as well as liabilities. This includes individual transactions over $5,000, the salaries of certain officers, directors, and trustees, as well as time spent by certain personnel on political or non-labour relations activities. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements could result in a fine of $1,000 for each day of non-compliance up to a maximum of $25,000 per year.

In addition, Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions that are already financially accountable to their members. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code requires unions as well as employer organizations to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge. Most provinces have similar requirements in their labour laws, so Bill C-377 duplicates accountability measures that already exist. The bill also puts unions at a disadvantage during the collective bargaining process 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 has in a strike fund for a possible work stoppage and how long they could stay out if it came to a strike; so, the union's most important negotiating lever is undermined. There have also been concerns raised about the constitutionality of Bill C-377, because the objective of the bill could be seen not as taxation, but as the regulation of unions, which is in large part a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Seven provinces spoke out against Bill C-377 for that very reason. Bill C-377 is problematic for many reasons, but if it is inconsistent with the Constitution then that alone should be reason enough to repeal the legislative changes it made.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This bill changed the unions' certification and decertification systems under the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The bill replaced the existing card check system with a mandatory vote system, despite the fact the old system worked well for decades and there was little pressure to change it. Bill C-525 makes it harder for a union to be certified as a collective bargaining agent, and makes it easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. Previously, the Canada Labour Code required at least 35% support to trigger a union certification vote. If the organization could show they had the majority's support, they were automatically certified as a bargaining unit. Now under Bill C-525, a party seeking to become a certified bargaining agent faces more difficult odds. To be certified as a bargaining agent, they need to demonstrate the support of at least 40% of the employees and must proceed to a certification vote in all cases, even if majority support is expressed. Previously, decertification was possible if the party seeking the revocation of the unit certification demonstrated majority support. Now representation votes must be conducted in all cases when at least 40% support for decertification is demonstrated.

When we asked stakeholders what they thought of the new certification rules, many said the previous card check system not only was faster and more efficient, but it was also more likely to be free of employer interference. Some have suggested that moving away from the mandatory vote system and reverting to a card check system is undemocratic. Statistics show that from 2004 to 2014 the Canada Industrial Relations Board dealt with 23 cases involving allegations of intimidation or coercion during an organizing campaign, and only six were upheld. That's six cases in 10 years. Of these six cases, four involved intimidation and coercion by an employer. The other two were situations where two unions were competing to represent the same group of employees, and one union made allegations against the other. The card check system is a perfectly democratic way of gauging support as it ensures that an absolute majority of employees support the union, not just those who come out and vote. In addition, the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board can order a vote if there are doubts about employees' support for unionization. A union will not be certified unless the labour board is satisfied that there is support for it by a majority of employees.

By repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, our government would restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. Successful collective bargaining and fairness in the employer-employee relationship are at the foundation of our economy. They provide stability and predictability in the labour force, two vital elements of a strong economy. To put it simply, good labour relations are good for everyone. The issue is simple: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement.

Bill C-4 would help return balance to labour relations and restore positive relations with provinces and territories. Our government strongly believes that Bill C-4 should be passed. I look forward to the committee's review of this important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Canada Labour Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard a lot of questions from the Conservative side about Bill C-525 and how we are not supporting secret ballots and all that, but what I do not hear from that side of House is discussion of Bill C-377. In my mind that was the more onerous piece of legislation. The way it tied up unions in knots, it really did seek to kneecap them and their ability to organize workers.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that particular piece of legislation and how it was a direct attack on the labour movement.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is probably my last opportunity to speak on the bill at second reading, so I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. In his joy to undo my private member's bill, C-525, does he think that as a member of Parliament in the next federal election, if he chooses to run again, he should be able to go to the doorstep of a Canadian household, have the voters come out and be able to demand that they sign or vote or cast their ballot on that doorstep, right in front of him, right when he wants them to?

Does he think that is democracy, because that is exactly what Bill C-4 would do. He is going to undo the right to a secret ballot vote, which is what Bill C-525 enabled. Does he think that is an improvement to democracy, because that what he is advocating?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, which is an exciting first step towards restoring the balance of power between unionized workers and employers.

The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act. The NDP supports all stages of this bill, which will repeal the bad Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. By the way, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Saskatoon West, for her work on this bill. She demonstrated how important it is to repeal these two bad bills.

We had mentioned that these two Conservative bills were unconstitutional and constituted an invasion of privacy, among other things. Nevertheless, the Conservatives pushed these bills, which offered nothing good for Canadian workers.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations and labour trusts provide information returns to the minister for public disclosure. This bill required all union organizations to submit detailed annual financial reports on salaries, revenues, and spending.

The Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said that Bill C-377 went too far and constituted an invasion of privacy. The Canadian Bar Association also questioned whether the bill was constitutional and even said that this bill would infringe on freedom of expression and freedom of association provisions. It was, therefore, a very bad bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continued to push this bill, even though almost everyone agreed that it was a very bad piece of legislation.

This reminds us of the need to protect collective bargaining and the right of unions to strike. We need to believe in the rights of unions and the important role they play in striking a balance of power between employers and workers. When unions are valued, workers have more rights and there is less pay disparity. A strong union presence has its benefits in a society.

That being said, the Conservatives introduced another bad bill, Bill C-525, which sought to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. In short, this bad Conservative bill was based on bad American laws that are increasingly geared at doing away with unions.

Under the bill, workers in the same union would be allowed to be members without making a financial contribution to the union's activities and without losing the benefits afforded to them under the collective agreement. That does not make any sense. It goes against union promotion. If fewer people paid union dues, it would upset the balance of power that allows workers to assert their rights.

The purpose of these legislative initiatives is to limit unions' financial capacity by making it easier for workers to opt out of union membership while continuing to take advantage of the benefits afforded to them under their collective agreement. This was yet another bad decision by the Conservatives.

I am truly very happy because the NDP worked so hard that the Liberals followed its lead. I am very proud of my party and our leadership in that regard. I am pleased that the Liberals are on the same page.

In Drummond, I regularly meet people who belong to a union. I recently met two members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Many workers in my riding are protected by this union. These people told me that they were concerned about what we have seen in recent years, and that is the erosion of workers' rights. They also shared with me what they would like to see happen. For example, they would like workers to continue to have the right to collective bargaining. Unfortunately, the Conservatives imposed working conditions by passing legislation rather than by negotiating with workers.

I believe that the Liberals understand that it is important to negotiate instead. I will come back to that.

Occupational health and safety under the Canada Labour Code has been eroded. Workers are very concerned about occupational health and safety problems and would like to prevent them. We are very proud to see that the Liberals have begun to look at this issue. They are tackling Bill C-59, which was introduced by the Conservatives. We want to repeal the bill, and the Liberal government is going to submit a proposal to the union.

Bill C-59 contained a provision that would abolish employees' right to good faith bargaining by authorizing the employer to unilaterally establish all sick leave conditions. There was a problem related to sick leave, and instead of negotiating the Conservatives imposed a law. Fortunately, the Liberals will negotiate instead. However, they have unfortunately brought forward the same proposal the Conservatives did. We are somewhat disappointed with that.

I also attended several general annual meetings of the union representing workers at the Drummondville penitentiary. I salute all the workers of the Drummondville penitentiary, who do an excellent job. I had the opportunity to visit the institution a number of times. The penitentiary's needs in terms of the rehabilitation of inmates, who want to eventually leave and return to society, are incredible. I am sure that this is the case for all other penitentiaries in Canada. I visited a continuing education class and there were other initiatives as well. I was very pleased to be able to visit them, and I would like to thank them for welcoming me.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie worked very hard in committee in the last Parliament to fight Bill C-377. I think that it is very important to acknowledge his contribution, because he did an incredible job.

Of course we are pleased and delighted that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are being repealed. However, we in the NDP will continue to pressure the government to enhance the right to collective bargaining and make working conditions more equitable for all Canadians. We will continue to pressure the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, reinstate the federal minimum wage, and pass the anti-scab legislation introduced yesterday by my colleague from Jonquière. That is a fantastic initiative, and we are all really proud of the collective work done by the NDP when it comes to protecting workers' rights.

I hope the bill passes unanimously in this Parliament, because it will restore the balance of power between workers and employers. I commend the NDP for the collective work it has done, which inspired the Liberal government, and I congratulate the Liberal government for moving in the right direction on this, although there is still work to be done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the past two decades there has been a steady attack on the rights of working people in Canada. Nowhere has this attack been more evident than on organized labour.

Having spent nearly a decade fighting the attack by the former Conservative government, the NDP welcomes the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Today, I am proud to stand in the House in support of Bill C-4, a bill that would restore unions' rights to represent their members and to ensure that labour relations are respected.

In the last Parliament, despite public warnings from Canada's Privacy Commissioner, constitutional experts, and the Canadian Bar Association that these bills were very likely to be found unconstitutional, Bill C-377 became law anyway. Bill C-377 placed onerous, redundant, privacy-violating reporting burdens on unions.

Unions were already required to make their financial information available to all their members. While pushed under the guise of transparency, this sweeping bill would have had far-reaching consequences.

For example, anyone who took on a temporary contract with a union and was paid more than $5,000 would see their name disclosed on this database. Likewise, any company engaging in work with a union, such as a small business providing snow removal services, would see their company and the contract details posted publicly, potentially undermining their ability to negotiate other contracts. Let me say that in Ottawa, it snows quite a lot.

By the way, this ideological attack on unions did not come without a price tag. The parliamentary budget officer estimated that the Canada Revenue Agency would need approximately $21 million to establish this electronic database over the first two years and approximately $2.1 million per year to keep the database up to date and to maintain after that. That means repealing Bill C-377 would save Canadian taxpayers and unions millions of dollars per year.

With the passage of Bill C-4, we now would have the opportunity to put that money to better use, to protect Canada's rights as well as access to government services.

Some of my constituents struggle daily to make ends meet, even with a full-time job, some of them with multiple jobs. Others would like to work, but cannot access the workforce for a variety of reasons including their inability to secure affordable, quality child care. The savings from this could fund a number of much needed programs such as social housing, services for seniors, and programs for the most vulnerable.

Like Bill C-377, Bill C-525 was designed to weaken unions in Canada. It was a bill that aimed to solve a problem that in my opinion, did not really exist.

Bill C-525 amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employee and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to make it more difficult to certify a union and much easier to decertify one.

Prior to this bill, in order to trigger a union certification vote within the workplace, between 35% and 50% of the employees would have to sign a card indicating that they wish to become members of the union. Bill C-525 would have seen this threshold raised to 40%. Let me make it very clear, prior to Bill C-525, if 35% of employees signed a card, it only triggered a workplace vote, it did not automatically certify a union.

In order to certify a union during the card signing process, more than 50% of employees would still need to have signed a card indicating that they wished to be a member of the union. Their rights were respected and the process was legitimate. For workplaces that were already unionized, Bill C-525 attempted to make decertification of a union easier.

Bill C-525 would lower the threshold required to trigger a decertification vote to 40%. With these measures, it is clear to me that the attempt here was to make it more difficult to trigger certification and for simply ideological reasons.

New Democrats have long supported Canadians' right to freedom of assembly, as protected under the charter, as well as defending the value of the labour movement to working Canadians. It is no coincidence that as unionized rates in Canada have fallen, good-paying, stable, full-time jobs have gone with them. Collective bargaining has played an important role throughout history in ensuring that workers' rights are protected, that workers work in a safe environment, and receive fair pay and benefits for the value they bring to the workforce.

As these stable, secure jobs have been eroded in the workplace, what remain in Canada now are precarious ones, temporary contracts, and part-time work, which often are without benefits and have lower pay. Those are becoming the norm in today's workplaces. Just last year it was found that 52%, or over half, of all workers in Toronto, a major city in Canada, are in these precarious employment situations. Across Canada, these precarious positions are also disproportionately held by visible minorities and new Canadians, adding another barrier to their moving up the socio-economic ladder and achieving financial security for themselves and their families.

For a growing number of precarious workers, making ends meet is becoming increasingly difficult as the cost of living continues to rise and their wages do not keep up. Statistics Canada found that the lowest-earning 20% of Canadian households are now spending over 51% of their take-home pay just to cover essentials. Housing costs alone are now taking up nearly one-third of 20% of Canadian households' paycheques.

The impact of precarious work goes beyond the chequebook. Workers in precarious jobs are nearly twice as likely to report worse mental health than those in secure positions. The impact on people not knowing when their next shift is, of being subject to last-minute scheduling, and not knowing if they will still have jobs next month can lead to acute stress, poor nutrition, and weight gain. Studies have also shown now that workers are becoming trapped in precarious situations instead of moving on to stable, permanent positions. It is increasingly evident that they are stuck, going from contract to contract.

Employment instability, lower wages, and the lack of benefits have far-reaching impacts on Canadians and the economy. Poverty among seniors hit a historic low of under 4% in 1995 and that figure has begun to reverse as workplace pension benefits are eroded and Canadians struggle to save for retirement.

In 2013, poverty rates among seniors increased slightly to 11%. Poverty among seniors disproportionately impacts women, who are now experiencing poverty at the unacceptable rate of 30%. However, do not take the NDP or labour's word for it. Unionization was a key driving force in the past in addressing these issues. Indeed, in a study released just last year, the International Monetary Fund signalled a significant shift in approach, acknowledging that the role unions have historically played in addressing income inequality in society around the globe has been understated.

Research bodies are now showing that declining unionization rates are a significant factor in increasing inequality, especially among developed nations, including Canada. The IMF has now stated that the declining presence of unions has not only weakened the earnings and earnings potential of low- and middle-income earners, but that this has directly led to the rapidly increasing income share of the very highest earners, in particular, corporate managers and shareholders. Unions in Canada play a key role in the financial security of working Canadians and this can no longer be denied.

The Liberal government's decision to repeal these ideological pieces of legislation that would further harm the Canadian labour movement and the financial security of working Canadians is a welcome first step, but there is more to be done. The NDP will continue to push the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, to reinstate a federal minimum wage, and to enact anti-scab legislation and proactive pay equity legislation. New Democrats will push for the repeal of the former Bill C-4, instead of being satisfied with just the current promise to review it. This legislation is also likely to be found unconstitutional and was another example of ideologically driven legislation to undermine fair collective bargaining.

Canadians can be assured that the NDP will continue to fight for workplace rights and against growing income inequality in Canada. Reducing inequality and improving the financial security of everyday working Canadians needs to be a top priority for the government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this debate today; I do think this is very interesting. It has been mentioned by a few of my other colleagues that we have a critical situation in terms of Alberta and the issue around oil and the prices of energy. We have issues in Quebec in terms of Bombardier.

As a country, we have many important things that we need to be dealing with, so it is absolutely ironic that of the two first bills that the current government brings forward, one is “oops” a mistake. The Liberals made a promise about income tax. It was supposed to be revenue neutral, but it is a $1.4 billion oops. However, they are going to bring it forward anyway and add to the deficit by $1.4 billion. Then, of course, the next bill that the Liberals brought forward is a bill that would detract from accountability. It does speak to the priorities of the current government that the first two bills it brings forward are oops and lack of transparency.

I have an interesting history with these two bills, which might be a bit unique in this Parliament. I sat on the finance committee when Bill C-377 was going through committee. Then I also sat on the HRSCC committee as the parliamentary secretary for the minister of labour, as we dealt with Bill C-525. I had the benefit of hearing and really watching the progress of these bills as they went through the legislative process. I heard the opposition members stand up and talk about how this violated safety and privacy, and that people with their private health care information were going to be identified, or RCMP were going to be identified.

We did our jobs as legislators at that time, and we made a number of amendments. We heard some concerns from committees, and we did make amendments that dealt with those specific concerns. It really is a bit disingenuous when the members of the government stand up and say that this was going to violate health concerns, that information was going to be public. That was looked at and the bill was amended. I ask that they not go back to the original version when they are criticizing this bill. They need to go to the amended version, the one that was actually passed. I think that was certainly a fair point.

The Liberals talked about other professional organizations not being included. I think that is a fair point. I am a nurse by background. I was a member of the nurses' union and a member of the nursing association, so that is a fair enough point. Lawyers' associations and nurses' associations were excluded from the bill, and perhaps they should also be accountable for the same level of transparency.

The Liberals questioned why they were not included. Instead of gutting the bill, if that was their issue, why did they not just add those professional associations to the bill to create the same level of transparency for everyone? If the Liberals had some concerns, there were ways that they could have added things.

There were concerns mentioned in terms of the red tape. I am sorry, but in this age of computers, the ability to generate and submit reports has become very easy. I challenge anyone in this House to go to a special site on the website for the United States Internal Revenue Service, where people can see the information they need to see. This is not something that was dreamed up out of the blue. This has been in the United States for many years, and I do not think it created the big challenges and problems that people were speaking to.

I do recognize that some unions are very good about sharing information. I talked to people at the International Union of Operating Engineers, and they shared with me the reports that they publish annually. It was very comprehensive, fulsome, and available to all their members. Certainly there is no question that there are some great practices among our unions in terms of what they share.

However, I also think that this is important to point out, and this aligns with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. For a government that claims it is concerned about transparency, why does it insist that people have to ask for the information? First nations transparency is such that first nations have to go to the band office, or they have to go begging to the government for basic information, if it is not provided willingly, and it is not always provided willingly.

For the union members, many organizations, but not all, are good about sharing that information. We can imagine how intimidating it would be for a member of a union to go in to ask for that information. This should be disclosed to union members.

If the Liberals care about transparency and do not want this going through the Canada Revenue Agency, why did they not amend it to say that it had to be made available online or make some other changes? Obviously, this is not about transparency, but about a promise they made to get support in the last election. If they had concerns with respect to the bill, they could have made changes to deal with those.

Bill C-525 is really about the right to a secret vote. We have had examples given here today, and I would like to provide an example.

I worked in a very small facility where there were 20 employees in total. Under the old system, if one of those 20 employees were interested in certifying a union, which was perfectly within his or her right to do, he or she could have talked to his or her 10 friends, they could have had a card check and hit their 51% and would have automatically been unionized without the other nine people even having a voice in that conversation. It is totally outrageous that 11 people could certify a union without the nine others having the ability to even have a say.

The secret ballot is not for the unions or the employer, but the employee. Members can imagine how divisive the whole idea of certification would be in this small setting of 20 people. The people who worked there did not want their name on the list among the 11 who wanted certification or among the nine who would ask for decertification. They wanted to have a secret ballot because they did not want the union to know and did not want their boss to know. Therefore, having a secret ballot is a fundamental democratic right.

I would again ask the members of the government how they can suggest not having a secret ballot on something that is so profound and so personal, and leaves people open to all sorts of difficult circumstances. I think that to move away from the secret ballot was an incredible mistake.

I look at British Columbia. It has had the secret ballot there for many years, which has not led to any catastrophic results, but to comfort for the worker. This was not about the employer or about the union, it was about the worker.

The government also likes to say that it made it harder to certify and easier to decertify. What it did was create an even threshold so that 50 plus one will certify or decertify a union. I do not think that is a very outrageous thing to do.

In conclusion, we have heard that one of the top priorities of the current government is to move away from transparency and whether to do so formally. I must give the Liberals their due, because right now it is being done formally as we have this chance to debate the bill and hold the government to account, whereas on the First Nations Transparency Act we heard them talk in question period about how a law is a law is a law. However, to them a law is only a law if they like it. If they do not like it, as was the case with the First Nations Transparency Act, they will not enforce it. Therefore, I think they have put themselves in a really difficult position.

I am delighted to stand up and talk to this, but I am disappointed that if the Liberals had concerns, they did not just make this better but are instead choosing to gut it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrible day. This will be the last day of debate on this legislation, which will all but assure the end of my private member's bill, Bill C-525, which I was very pleased to have passed. It brought accountability to a process. It empowered every worker in the country currently in a union, or thinking about being in a union, or leaving a union the right to have a secret ballot vote and do what is best for them.

I was pleased to stand in this place and do this as a private member. Could my colleague talk about how important it is for members of Parliament to be empowered to do the job on behalf of their constituents and not be subjected to attacks and pointless debate about what members of Parliament should or should not be allowed to do in this chamber?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.

As members of Parliament, it is important that we all have our finger on the pulse of the priorities of our constituents, and it is imperative that we set out to meet those needs on their behalf. For me, it has been the absolute honour of a lifetime to be able to serve the constituency of Wild Rose first and now Banff—Airdrie as member of Parliament. I want my constituents to know that I will always continue to fight for them and to stand up for their priorities and our great province of Alberta.

When I pursued public life, I did so because I wanted to give back to my community. My objective was to bring people together, whether in my riding or here in Ottawa, to help move great ideas from concepts into action, listen to Canadians, and deliver results. However, today I am here to talk about Bill C-4, one of the Liberal government's first priorities.

As an Alberta MP, my priority is to give a voice to a riding and a province that are severely impacted by falling oil prices, mass layoffs, and collapsing businesses. In addition to the Liberal mismanagement that we are seeing with a ballooning federal deficit, I was shocked to see the government put forward a bill, as one of its top priorities, aimed not at supporting workers or the more than 100,000 people who have lost their jobs as a result of the struggling oil and gas sector but, rather, a bill to please union bosses, which would reverse key transparency measures that our previous Conservative government put in place.

Specifically, the Liberal government is introducing, as one of its first priorities, legislation that seeks to reduce transparency for union bosses by removing a requirement that the leadership share how it spends its members' union dues and removing the secret ballot provision for trade union formation and abolition. I firmly believe that this bill is critically flawed. It is flawed in that it reduces the transparency that Canadians are demanding in all areas of public administration, and it does this at a time when the government should be focused on workers, not union bosses.

I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House what it is like at home in my riding and my province right now. We are living through one of the most significant downturns of our generation. More than 100,000 people have lost their jobs in Canada, with many now risking the loss of their homes and the lives they have worked so hard to build. Almost 40,000 of those job losses are in my province of Alberta. Alberta's unemployment rate has surged to 7.4%, surpassing the national average for the first time in nearly three decades. It is a very difficult time.

In the midst of this downturn, Albertans are feeling absolutely and utterly abandoned by the Liberal government. Instead of helping the people of my province, the government has, instead, turned to kneecapping the energy industry. The Liberals are adding further uncertainty to the energy industry through their new temporary, endless regulatory processes, raising the spectre of a new carbon tax, and imposing more and more obstacles for critical market access infrastructure that, I might add, would not cost the government a single dime.

Instead, the Liberal Party has taken the stance that, if it calls a sum of money “stimulus”, Albertans will keep quiet about the Liberals completely thumbing their noses at the energy industry with their new job-killing policies. I will say this: we are not going to stay quiet. I hear time and time again from my constituents and from the thousands of Albertans who work in the oil and gas sector that a plan for jobs and a strong economy is what we need right now, not a temporary, uncertain, and endless regulatory regime, and definitely not a new job-killing carbon tax.

The government should be focused on creating jobs. What we have seen from the Liberals so far is added uncertainty for pipeline development and certainly an unwillingness to stand up for our citizens who are in need of support. More taxes will not create jobs or help Albertans get back to work. Unfortunately, what we have seen, instead, from the Liberal government is that it is certainly a government that is fond of taking misguided approaches, which is what we are seeing demonstrated in Bill C-4.

The legislation is not focused on workers at all. In fact, it would do more harm to them. It is simply a step back for democracy, transparency, and accountability. There are so many reasons why it demonstrates how the government is going in exactly the wrong direction.

The legislation violates the fundamental principle of transparency. If the Liberals are truly trying to pride themselves on being more open, it boggles the mind as to why one of the first pieces of legislation they have introduced totally and absolutely contradicts that principle.

Bill C-377 saw the requirement for public disclosure of a non-profit organization. Requiring public disclosure by organizations receiving substantial public benefits is not a new concept. Canadian charities have been publicly reporting their spending for at least 35 years. Nonetheless, the legislation blocks the public from seeing how any benefits the government provides to unions are being leveraged. Why are the Liberals removing this level of transparency when public disclosure creates greater credibility and support for the legitimately representative work that unions do?

Bill C-4 would enable union bosses to direct their members' fees without having any accountability to their members. They would make decisions of advocacy and conscience under a shroud of secrecy without any accountability at all to their members.

If shielding the books from the membership, the actual workers, is not enough, with Bill C-4, the Liberals are also standing against a worker's right not to join a union.

The legislation would eliminate Bill C-525 and its provisions which support Canadians free choice of whether they want to be a part of a union free from intimidation. This is what Canadians should expect in our democracy. This legislation was put in place by our previous Conservative government to further support workers.

Bill C-525 also required union organizers to get expressions of support from a very reasonable 45% of workers in federally regulated sectors in order to force a vote on union certification. Bill C-525 also ensured that the subsequent vote would then be held by a secret ballot. If a majority of workers in that collective bargaining support joining a union, then certification would proceed. The same logical process would apply in reverse should workers seek to decertify a union.

We just came through a federal election. I would have been happier with a different result, but we again experienced one of the most surreal traditions of life in a democracy, a peaceful and orderly transition of power. We use a secret ballot in our democratic system. Although the government may be looking to change the electoral system, we surely do not hear it talking about changing the critical democratic piece of a secret ballot anywhere but in the labour movement. Five provinces already employ this method of union certification. Bill C-525 would simply apply it to federally regulated sectors. Abolishing the secret ballot would be an attack on the democratic process. All members of Parliament are elected by secret ballot, so why take that away from everyday workers?

Bill C-4 is a fatally flawed piece of legislation. If the Liberals really want to help workers and their families, they should consider some facts.

Commodity prices have contributed to massive layoffs across the country and our dollar continues to drop in value. In 2015, Canada's oil and gas industry lost $60 billion in revenue. That is equivalent to wiping out the Canadian auto sector in just one year. The IMF has downgraded its economic outlook for Canada. The household debt to income ratio of Canadians is now the highest in the G7. Canadians are suffering the consequences of these real challenges.

Unemployed Canadians are out there with no prospect of finding jobs. Working families are living with the fear every day that they will lose their jobs. Seniors are watching their retirement savings drop as the markets struggle.

These are the challenges that should shape and drive policy that we set here. Canadians expect their government to take action. We should be seeing initiatives to keep taxes lower so Canadians have more money in their pockets to make ends meet. Instead, we see a proposed carbon tax and we see measures to increase EI premiums and taxes, measures that would add further uncertainty on our natural resources regulatory processes, a ballooning deficit, and now we have a bill today focused on union bosses rather than their workers.

These are the priorities of the Liberal government and that just demonstrates that the government has its priorities all wrong.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-4. Of course it goes without saying that I will be supporting this bill at second reading.

We spent the last 10 years under constant attack from the previous Conservative government with respect to workers' rights. Obviously I will be talking about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were introduced in the previous Parliament. I will come back to them later in my speech.

There have been flagrant examples in recent years. It was almost an obsession. I am talking about the Conservative Party's attitude towards the workers at Canada Post and the CBC, just to name a couple. I think some people, especially on this side over here, often forget the many benefits brought about by unionization.

For example, a unionized worker earns on average five dollars more an hour than a non-unionized worker. Among women, that gap is even wider at $6.65 an hour. This translates into greater purchasing power and more money going back into the economy. Basically, it is good for everyone. This is not rocket science. I would also remind the House that we do not hear stories about tax havens when it comes to these kinds of wages and workers.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to repair the damage from the Conservatives' attacks against workers. First, it prevents legal challenges. According to our analysis and that of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Bill C-377 went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts would no doubt have annulled that bill because it violated the right to the freedom of association and violated the privacy of those who work for a union.

I find it rather insulting that the previous government decided to introduce a bill that it knew was easily revocable by a court. Why do that? Was it out of ideology, or flagrant disregard for workers and our institutions, including our courts? Maybe it was a cheap fundraising stunt on the backs of its supporters. We know that the Conservatives have a penchant for that type of thing. Unfortunately, we will never know, but fortunately we are here to undo the previous government's dirty tricks.

The Conservatives may have claimed that they introduced the bill in the hallowed name of transparency, but what they failed to say is that unions were already required to report their financial information to their members. That is a rather important detail that we do not often hear the Conservatives talk about.

Bill C-377 imposed detailed and costly reports and requirements on the unions. The Conservatives pushed the bill through, despite general opposition from the public, including constitutional law experts, the NHL Players Association, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, which takes some doing, privacy experts, the Canadian Bar Association, and so on. We are not the only ones who are pleased to see Bill C-4 before the House and to see it pass quickly.

According to the parliamentary budget officer's estimates, implementing Bill C-377 would have cost much more than the $2.4 million that the Conservatives planned to give the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA would have spent almost $21 million in the first two years to create the electronic database required and approximately $2.1 million annually to maintain the system. I have not even touched on all the hours that the unions would spend to meet these requirements, which would be added to their workload, instead of protecting workers' rights.

Therefore, the repeal of Bill C-377 will save millions of dollars for both the government and the unions. I would like to quote the national president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents NDP employees:

UCFW is pleased to see the government tabling Bill C-4. Our union campaigned vigorously against the Conservative Government's Bill C-377 in the last parliament. The bill was undemocratic, and part of the Conservative government's campaign against workers and workplace democracy. It was also a major invasion of the privacy of individual union members and it infringed on provincial jurisdiction over labour issues. Repealing Bill C-377 is positive for all Canadians as this bill would have been expensive for the government to implement and monitor.

That is what I wanted to say about one-half of Bill C-4. As for Bill C-525 , it sought to make it harder for workers to organize, while making it easier to decertify unions. What struck me about the bill at the time was that it was completely unfounded.

The government made changes to the labour laws without even proving that the old union accreditation method was a problem. I will summarize the facts.

About 10% of workers currently fall under federal jurisdiction. They are represented by a number of unions, such as public service unions, Unifor, and trade and construction unions. Before, a union was automatically accredited when more than 50% of workers signed a card indicating that they wanted to unionize. When 35% to 50% of workers signed a membership card, an election was triggered to determine whether the workers truly wanted to unionize. Bill C-525 wanted to change the threshold for triggering an election for accreditation from 35% to 40%. Furthermore, it would have also banned the automatic card check certification system.

This is yet more evidence of the previous government's disdain for workers' rights. This backwards attitude ignores the fact that, for example, the wage increases negotiated by the union inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the Canadian economy every week.

I want to get back to what I was saying earlier. One of the advantages of unionization is that it injects more money into the economy. When people earn higher wages, they consume more. We are talking about regular people, not Bay Street CEOs, who earn astronomical salaries and then send that money to some far-away island.

I applaud this bill from my colleagues opposite, who made a good decision to start their term by repealing these two harmful bills. That is a good sign. However, we must remain cautious, because this is only a sign. In recent years, my colleagues opposite waxed on and on about standing up for the middle class, but I must say that their definition of the middle class, which they are using for the tax cuts they promised during the campaign, is flawed. The threshold they use is rather arbitrary.

I would now like to talk about this dangerous new bug that everyone in the current Liberal government seems to have contracted, and that is “consultitis”. That is all well and good, and I understand that some issues require a lot of discussion and consultation with experts. However, there are also some issues that have obvious answers. The government could save time on those rather than getting caught up in this constant consultation. That is what I mean by “consultitis”.

The government needs to protect the middle class by taking meaningful action, not by spouting rhetoric and launching public consultations left and right. We have heard enough about consultation since this government took office. Talk is all well and good, but it does not put food on people's tables.

I therefore urge the Liberals to do more, to take more meaningful action. The benefits of doing so are tangible and easily verifiable, so let us get started.

The NDP will continue to exert pressure on the government to reinstate the federal minimum wage and vote in favour of the anti-scab bill introduced by my colleague from Jonquière. It is a common sense initiative, as is pay equity, obviously.

I find it very frustrating that problems like the ones I mentioned, which were identified decades ago, are still wreaking such havoc. Canada is a progressive country, which is obvious from our general attitude on thorny issues such as physician-assisted dying. However, I find that we sometimes drag our feet for no apparent reason. Everyone here recognizes that women and men are equals, but that belief is not reflected in our economy, where we see wage disparities that make no sense.

In closing, I realize that there are a lot of messes to clean up. After a decade under the Conservative dinosaurs, there is a lot of work to be done. That decade put us on guard. The NDP will certainly not be giving the Liberals a blank cheque, since everyone knows that they have a tendency to signal left during the election and then turn right once they take office.

Unequal distribution of wealth is not just theoretical. It is a very real problem that is beyond comprehension in a country as wealthy as Canada. Decent working conditions and decent pay are good for everyone. We all know the harmful and devastating effects of poverty. I am proud to belong to a political party that understands these issues and refuses to compromise when it comes to implementing effective measures to truly eradicate poverty and poor working conditions, which have no place in a country like Canada.

Labour

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to support the many men and women in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury who belong to an organized labour union. As a past union member myself, I understand how unions strengthen communities. They have helped create safer workplaces, better working conditions, and recognize the need for workplace health and safety committees.

I believe that unions play an important role in today's economy and that they encourage business growth. Accordingly, we must treat the labour movement fairly, since unions help establish productive relations between employees and employers.

I am very proud to be part of a Liberal government that will repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and in helping the middle class grow.

I look forward to meeting every organized labour union in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, to listen and understand their issues.

Merci, meegwetch.

Canada Labour Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not all union members in Canada want their union dues spent to support a political party that they do not support. They want the protection of a secret ballot.

I am interested to hear the member explain how replacing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 with Bill C-4 would do anything to protect the workers' rights.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we resume debate on Bill C-4 today, it is important to remember why unions matter. Unions provide better pay, pensions, and benefits. Unions provide healthier and safer workplaces.

Some would argue that, while unions might have been necessary in a Dickensian era, workers are now already protected by good regulations; but the reality in many workplaces is that labour and safety regulations are only really applied if a union is present to call attention to those issues. Unions give employees a voice in their workplaces, and that feedback is often very useful to management and, indeed, can help to improve productivity. Countries with higher rates of unionization enjoy better living standards, greater equality, and more stable economies.

I believe that the House should maintain an industrial relations regime that facilitates employees forming unions and bargaining collectively. Unfortunately, the former Conservative government did the opposite. Bill C-525 made it harder to form unions and easier to decertify them. The Conservatives would say that this bill is all about allowing workers to vote on their union status, but the Conservatives have not implemented a system that would allow elections in all workplaces across the country to determine whether employees want a union.

The Conservatives' supposed interest in workplace democracy only kicks in after workers have indicated that they want to join a union by signing membership cards. Bill C-525 essentially places another hurdle in the way of employees seeking to join a union, and this delay is not simply a matter of inconvenience. In far too many cases, it has provided an opportunity for employers to intimidate their employees and prevent unionization.

Moving on to Bill C-377, this legislation imposes onerous administrative requirements on unions. The Conservatives would have us believe that it is all about transparency. I think everyone in the House believes that unions should and do provide financial statements to their members. That happened for decades before this legislation was enacted, and it will continue to happen after it is repealed.

However, Bill C-377 went far beyond financial statements. It required unions to disclose and account for each individual transaction over $5,000. If the House ever applied that type of transparency to a business, the Conservatives would be screaming about red tape and compliance costs. Indeed, Bill C-377 would cost millions of dollars for the Canada Revenue Agency to administer.

One of the more clever arguments that the Conservatives made in this debate was that international unions operating in Canada are already subject to such requirements through the U.S. Department of Labor. Before the people of Regina—Lewvan elected me, I worked as an economist for the United Steelworkers union, and I can tell the House that Bill C-377 does not align with the American disclosure requirements and, in fact, goes far beyond them.

I am very happy to vote in favour of Bill C-4, but simply repealing the most egregious Conservative attacks on working people is not enough. Much more is going to be needed to improve the situation of working Canadians.

Often in this debate, the Liberals have spoken about the need for balance in industrial relations. One aspect of that balance is that in the rare cases where the collective bargaining process breaks down, both sides bear an economic cost. In a strike or a lockout, the employer must make do without the workers' labour and the workers must make do without their wages. Therefore, there is pressure on both sides to come to a resolution. However, if the employer can simply bring in replacement workers, that destroys this balance.

I am very pleased that my colleague from Jonquière has introduced a private member's bill to restore balance in this situation. In recent minority Parliaments, the Liberals spoke very positively about anti-scab legislation, but they never quite produced enough votes to actually pass it.

Now, the Liberals have a majority. They have the ability to pass whatever legislation they want, and how the Liberals vote on anti-scab legislation will be a crucial test of whether the government plans to live up its rhetoric about respecting workers' rights and strengthening the middle class.

Many other important workplace issues go beyond industrial relations. In the election, the Liberals promised to improve the Canada pension plan. It took three ghosts to convince Ebenezer Scrooge. When the Minister of Finance met with the provinces before Christmas, it took only two ghosts, Christy Clark and Brad Wall, to steer him away from improving the Canada pension plan.

As a proud Saskatchewanian, I found it rather strange that our premier used the downturn in commodities to argue against improving the Canada pension plan, rather than be in favour of improving employment insurance that actually would have helped the affected workers.

Despite all the Conservative rhetoric we have heard in this House about the need to respect the oil and gas sector, I think it is telling that Conservative MPs will not stand up and support better access to employment insurance for laid-off energy workers.

I am proud of the fact that the NDP is pushing for better employment insurance. In the election, the Liberals also talked about better employment insurance, but yesterday they were up speaking against our opposition day motion to achieve exactly that.

The specific Liberal objection was to a national entrance requirement of 360 hours. I would just remind the House that when the Liberals were on this side of the House, they were demanding precisely that policy. Now the Liberals are saying that regional differences in labour markets need to be respected.

Certainly those regional differences exist, but if someone is laid off in a region of high unemployment or low unemployment, they are still out of a job and they still need income support.

What the Liberals have not explained is why the entrance requirement is the aspect of employment insurance that should vary in response to regional differences. It is still the case that the duration of EI benefits varies according to the regional unemployment rate, and there is a logic that it probably takes longer to find a job in an area with a higher unemployment rate. The NDP motion would allow the duration of EI benefits to continue to vary according to regional differences.

There are also problems and lags in measuring regional unemployment. Regina is near the epicentre of the downturn in the oil and gas sector, yet the measured unemployment rate in my community is still low enough that the entrance requirement for EI remains at the national maximum of 700 hours.

Imagine individuals working part time for 25 hours a week, and imagine that they work for half the year. Well, 25 hours a week times 26 weeks is 650 hours, which is not enough to qualify for employment insurance. Individuals in Regina could pay into EI for half a year, and then when they are laid off, receive no benefit whatsoever. That is unfair, and that is why we need a national entrance requirement of 360 hours.

The NDP will vote for Bill C-4, but working Canadians also need the Liberals to vote for our opposition day motion to improve employment insurance, to vote for the private member's bill to enact anti-scab legislation, and to keep their promise to improve the Canada pension plan.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard, and I have heard, from many unions across the country, and in my riding. Many of their members look at these laws, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, as very different from some of the other provincial legislation that is in place. We have to repeal these bills to restore fairness and balance in the labour movement.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-4 and to ask my fellow members' support.

Bill C-4 would repeal two bills that have changed the labour relations landscape in Canada, and not for the better. We have said from the start that we believe in doing different things and in doing things differently. Supporting the middle class and those working hard to support it is a key priority of our government. Labour relations, positive and otherwise, have a direct and immediate effect on workers and employers.

Bill C-4 would restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in the country, an approach that would allow workers to make free and informed decisions. It is supported by both employers and labour, and it fosters stability. These are fundamental Canadian values that should be reflected in how we support Canadian workers. It is an approach that we can be proud of, unlike the previous Conservative government's “my way or the highway” attitude.

We know we are in trouble when we hear what respected labour leaders, like the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, have to say about Bill C-525 and C-377. He said that the bills “...were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.”

The northern Ontario area manager of the carpenters' union said, “Our membership and staff are incredibly happy to hear the Federal Government has followed through with its campaign promise to repeal these [two bills]. The introduction of these Bills were self-serving and posed no benefits to our members who rely on [protecting the rights of the union workers].”

A third quote is from the Canadian union of operating engineers. It said, “One of the biggest key points to repeal Bill C-377 and C-525 is for our members privacy [...] We are a small union [representing] 14,000 members. The additional...cost associated [with making] these changes [with the] new rules will run in and around 3 million dollars, an expense [that this union] cannot afford. We agree with the government and believe these Bills [should] be repealed.”

Simply put, these bills have undermined labour unions and labour relations in the country. Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions and could put unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining. Bill C-525 makes it difficult for employees to unionize and easier for bargaining agents to be certified. Therefore, they trust the government's plan to ensure Canada's labour laws best serve employees and employers.

As a past union member myself, I understand how unions strengthen communities. They help to create a safer workplace, better working conditions, and help recognize the need for workplace health and safety committees.

I look forward to meeting every organized labour union in my riding of Nickel Belt and greater Sudbury, to hear, listen, and understand their issues. I recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping the middle class.

Unions play an important economic role and encourage companies to grow and prosper. They trust that unions can establish productive relationships between and employees and employers. Therefore, we should trust the union movement in a fair and balanced way.

While unions are required to share a great deal of information about their operations, employers are not. An organization that does not follow the rules would be fined $1,000 a day, and up to $25,000. Why would a requirement like this be imposed on a labour organization and no one else? These bills single out and attack labour in Canada for no fair reason.

These measures discriminate against unions. Bill C-525 is a disaster. It replaced the card check system with mandatory voting. Unions are no longer certified automatically when a majority of workers sign membership cards. That complicates things for workers who want to unionize. Not only is it now more difficult for unions to obtain certification as bargaining agents, but it is also easier for them to lose their certification.

Who could possibly benefit from the new system? It sure looks like everyone loses. It was up to us to turn the ship around. We are acting in everyone's interest. We want to help the middle class, not hurt it. We believe that for labour policy reform to happen, there must be meaningful dialogue among unions, employers, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public. We are walking the talk.

Repealing Bills C-377 and C-525 is the right decision. It is an informed decision that will restore fairness and balance to the world of work.

These two bills are nothing but solutions to problems that do not even exist. That is why I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-4, which is in the best interest of all Canadians.

I ask members to think about what labour unions do for Canadians, and to think about the working Canadians who are trying to make a living and raise their family. Are decent wages and safe working environments something that members think Canadians can live without? Are positive labour relations between employers and employees important?

I ask members to think about the rights of workers to be represented and protected. I ask that members do the right thing and repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

I am proud to be part of the Liberal government that will repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper.

Labour

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is right to state that the previous Conservative government had organized labour in its crosshairs. We saw that time and again, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 for example, which I am very pleased that our minister's first piece of legislation, Bill C-4, will repeal.

We will continue to work on labour issues, fair wages, and the definition of danger. Those are important issues and we will continue to pursue them as we go forward.

Canada Labour Code

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-4.

We heard a lot from the other two parties about the importance of unions and the union environment, and I agree. Unions play an important role in our society and our economy, but they also have to keep up to pace with the modern society and modern economy that we now have in the 21st century.

I am proud to have been a long-time union member. I was a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC. I was a member of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees. I was also a member of CUPE. I know firsthand about being a member of a union and the benefits that union membership does bring to a number of people in the workforce. However, at the same time, it is also essential that unions are subject to a fair and effective regulatory process to ensure that unions serve their members and not just their union bosses. Bill C-4, however, would remove such regulations and protections, and that is why I will not be supporting it.

The current Liberal government brought Bill C-4 to repeal two private members' bills passed by the 41st Parliament: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. While the other parties make some obscure claims that these bills are attacks on unions, when one actually reads the bills, it is very clear that it is simply not the case.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act, requiring union management to file a standard set of financials each year to be posted on the CRA website. These requirements are not unreasonable. In fact, if a union boss were proud of the work he or she was doing, he or she should be more than willing to show his or her strong financial management within his or her union environment.

Bill C-377 was carefully examined by Parliament through the private members' bill process. It went to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, where many groups expressed their support for the bill, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, and Merit Canada.

The transparency requirements introduced in Bill C-377 do not weaken unions. In fact, they empower union members. Union members and all Canadians are able to receive quicker and easier access to information on how their mandatory union fees are being used. This is essential. Union fees are not optional; they are mandatory. What else is mandatory? Canadian taxes.

We as parliamentarians all spend Canadian tax dollars with our expense claims, and we as parliamentarians post our expenses online for our constituents to see. Union dues are the same. They are forced mandatory fees, and Canadians and those who pay fees should have access to that information, especially when these fees are being used to undertake political activities.

Mandatory union fees should be used to support and protect the wages, rights, and benefits of their members. However, for purposes beyond that, members should be entitled to know where their money is going and how it is being spent. It is imperative that those who are forced to pay union fees have easy access to that information so they can hold their representatives and their directors accountable. It allows members to ensure that their union leaders are spending their hard-earned money in a way that is responsible and not for the personal or political gain of union leadership.

As I said at the outset, I am a former union member. In 2012, I was a member of PSAC, local 610. In that year, we saw a provincial election in Quebec, and PSAC came out and openly endorsed the Parti Québécois in the Quebec provincial election. Here we had PSAC, a federal government union, supporting tens of thousands of federal public servants, openly endorsing a separatist party in Quebec. As a union member, I was disgusted by that. I was disgusted by the fact that my union would go out and openly support a party that had no other raison d'être than ruining and breaking up this country. It was unconscionable that it happened, but it did.

During the 2014 provincial election in Ontario, because my wife is a nurse and a member of a local union, our home voice mail was constantly flooded with union messages telling us whom we should not be voting for. They did not go so far as to tell us who we should be voting for, but they simply told us that one particular party would cause all kinds of job losses. Of course, now we are seeing those same job losses under Kathleen Wynne in Ontario, but the union seems to be quiet on that particular subject.

Here is the thought: these unions need to be accountable to their members on how they spend in a clear and transparent manner, especially when we are talking about political activities undertaken by union membership with forced and mandatory union dues.

I want to talk briefly now about Bill C-525, which amended the Canada Labour Code to require certification and decertification votes to be held by secret ballot. This protects individuals from undue pressure and intimidation, and it allows secret ballot for workers to decide how they want to be represented, and not to be pressured by their co-workers or union bosses.

I have been listening very closely to the arguments on the other side against the secret ballot, and I have yet to hear one single coherent answer on what is wrong with the secret ballot for certification and decertification votes. We have heard our other members suggest how secret ballots are used in other types of union activities and why there is such an inherent challenge with using secret ballots for a certification vote. We just simply have not had an answer on that. The secret ballot is a fundamental element of a fair and democratic process. It is something that I, as a parliamentarian, am proud to stand for and proud to endorse. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were not attacks on unions. However, Bill C-4 is an attack on accountability and transparency.

In his letter to Canadians on November 4, 2015, the Prime Minister said, “That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency...”. The government across the way claims to be all for openness and transparency, but if it were really for that, it would not be going ahead with the repeal of these two bills. It is very clear that openness and transparency is a mushy subject for the Liberals across the way, and how they selectively choose to define it is really up to them, it seems.

Finally, I want to talk about that canard that we have been hearing time and again from the Liberals across the way, that private members' bills are somehow a way of getting legislation in through the back door. I am proud to be a member of this House. I worked hard to get to this place. We knocked on more than 30,000 doors in Perth—Wellington, and I am proud to come in through that front door and to represent my constituents in Perth—Wellington here. I am proud to have the ability, as a private member, to introduce legislation that I feel supports the people of Perth—Wellington and supports the people of Canada as a whole. It is disgusting that the Liberals would refer to this as going through the back door of legislation. We have rights as parliamentarians, and I am proud to stand on behalf of those rights. I am proud to be a member of a party that saw, under the Conservative government, more private members' bills pass in the 41st Parliament than at any time before then.

I am proud that our party allows free votes on private members' business, and on votes of conscience for that matter, unlike the members across the way. I am proud to be standing in this House, representing the people of Perth—Wellington, and I am proud to be voting against Bill C-4, which would be a step backward for openness and transparency.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. As a member who was elected to the House right off the job site and a proud member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, I am very pleased to be speaking to this legislation.

We have heard a lot in the debate. The hon. member was just talking about the executive and the membership. I come from a union where the rank and file were quite upset with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. They wanted to see them go. They go to their monthly meetings and discuss what kind of spending is going to happen at the executive level, right down to approving the credit card bill, on a monthly basis, of the people who work in the office. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of most members of my union that they have the opportunity, not just to get the information about how their local union is spending money, but also to have a say in open meetings.

There is a fabricated argument for transparency. For those who need the transparency because it is their dues money being spent, they have access to that information and have had access to that information. In that sense, the bill was a solution looking for a problem.

The executive in my union know well that the power they have when it comes to working with industry, finding jobs for members and making sure that members get fair pay and good benefits for the work they do, does not come from any particular piece of legislation. Obviously, like any other good institution, we need enabling legislation, not persecuting legislation, as I would say Bill C-377 and C-525 are. The power of the executive of my union comes from the membership. It comes from the good work that we do every day. It comes from the quality product that we produce on site. It comes from the extra training that our union provides to our members so that we are out there being the best in the industry. That is why our contractors, like the electrical contractors of Manitoba, have worked quite collaboratively with my local. They know that our union is providing added value to the projects they do, and frankly that we are making them more money. That is what we hear in the dialogue with our contractors.

I am in a tight spot, because of course I do not want to be unparliamentary. I do not want to attribute ulterior motives to any particular party. However, the level of ignorance that one would have to attribute to people making some of the arguments I have heard in the Chamber today, such as ignorance about the way that unions work, about the relationship in the building trades between the unions and contractors, verges on unparliamentary. Therefore, I am feeling in a bit of a tight spot.

I do not want to do any of that, so perhaps I will talk instead about the degree and extent to which the legislation has to be seen not just on its own. If we consider it on its own, then some of the red herrings we have heard today may be effective. However, we need to consider it in the context of a government program that brought in Bill C-377, Bill C-525 and Bill C-59. When railroad workers were going into negotiations with their employer and Canada Post workers were going into negotiations with their employer, they were threatened. Sometimes before they even had the strike vote, they were threatened that they would be legislated back to work.

We need to consider it in the context of a government, some of whose members were making comments such as we heard again today from members from the Conservative Party, criticizing the Rand formula and mandatory union dues. We need to consider it in the context of a government that limited access to EI so that workers were more afraid of challenging their employer, because in the case of a layoff they would not be able to pay their mortgage and feed their families. We need to consider it in the context of a government that refused to talk to the provinces when they asked to increase the Canada pension plan, so that employees who were ready to retire could not leave the workforce, putting downward pressure on wages and blocking opportunities for young people to be promoted within their companies. When we consider it in that context, it is impossible to say that those bills were not meant as an anti-union program. It had very little to do with anything that was coming from the rank and file of labour unions, and everything to do with a government that was working hand in hand with employers to put downward pressure on the working conditions and wages of Canadian workers.

That is part of why these bills were so shameful. It is not just for the content of the bill; we have heard a lot about what was wrong with the content of the bills. They were part of a deliberate and sustained program to make life harder for Canadian workers so that corporations that were already, over that timeframe, making record profits could add a little more to their margins. In a time when corporations were seeing their tax rate go from 28% to 15%, they could squeeze a little bit more out of their workers.

When the economy is working well, we have labour peace. We have labour peace, not when employees are being held under the thumb of their employers, but when they are free to negotiate collectively with their employers and work for fair wages and fair benefits. We know that the union movement, over time and today, contributed to that and contributes to that. We know by the behaviour of many employers, and I dare say even some governments, that if we did not continue to have a strong labour movement in Canada, we would soon lose those gains that were hard fought and hard won over the last 100 or 150 years. That is why we on these benches are concerned to see a legislative environment that allows the union movement to thrive.

We hear sometimes that times were tough and we may have needed some unions to help with workplace conditions, but by and large really, prosperity just spontaneously came out of the industrial revolution. Forgotten in that account is that the organization of workers went hand in hand with that, and it was not until workers were organized that those gains actually came.

I think we need to be careful that we not give credit for the accomplishments of the labour movement to employers that would still be, and we know that they would still be, treating their workers in the way that they treated them in the 19th century. In parts of the world, the very same employers, operating in Canada in some cases, are treating their workers in other parts of the world as if it was the 19th century.

We would have to be very naive indeed to believe that, if there was not the legislative framework and if there was not the strong labour movement that we have had in Canada here, those same employers would not get the idea that maybe they could treat their Canadian workers that way too. I think we need to be very careful that we not attribute the good conditions and the good wages that some Canadian workers continue to enjoy to the benevolence of their employer, but acknowledge that those were gained hard fought and hard won.

I would say that in their more enlightened moments, some employers, like some of the employers that I am glad we have in the electrical industry in Manitoba, know that it has been overall good for them. It has created a customer base. Employees who have disposable incomes can afford their homes and are not worried about their families. They have child care. We can get into all the issues, but largely workers, well paid, well fed, and well housed are more productive, and that is good for Canadian employers.

Again, I think it speaks to the shame of the previous government that it would have sought unsolicited, except maybe by some employers, but certainly not by a groundswell of Canadian workers, to disrupt that partnership that had developed. This is not always easy. We had arrived at a place in Canada where at least some workers, and usually unionized workers, were getting a fair return on the work they did and that employers were benefiting from having those productive workers.

I do not think it is the place of a government to go and intentionally disrupt that. We can talk about what is in the particular context of those bills. I do not think it is very good, but certainly when we look at the larger context, that seems to be the case. It is one of the reasons I ran. I did not think we could tolerate having a government that bent on disrupting that relationship between the labour movement and employers and making sure that workers got their fair share. It is why I can hardly wait to stand in favour of the bill.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that my colleague mentioned the trades of members of his riding. I would like to draw attention to something that Canada's Building Trades Unions put forward around this piece of legislation. It stated:

Canada's Building Trades Unions are very pleased with the introduction of repeal legislation for Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. [They] are pleased this is one of the first pieces of Government legislation introduced in the 42nd Parliament.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. Will he stand with unionized workers in his riding in the building trades, repeal this regressive legislation, and help grow the Canadian economy?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. For the people who are watching from home, it is a bad day in Ottawa outside of this place. The snow is falling and they are predicting over a foot of snow here. Traffic has come to a halt almost, yet it is warm in here.

We are discussing Bill C-4, and it is always a pleasure when we can stand and debate the issues.

It is kind of a bad day in here as well for the governing party. One of the first things the Liberals did was take away the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The second thing they did was pull our troops out of the war against ISIL. Now they have Bill C-4.

The majority of people in my riding of Battle River—Crowfoot would oppose Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is 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. As we have already heard today, the previous Conservative government already passed amendments to the Labour Code and these three statutes.

The amendments improved two key laws on democracy and union transparency. Bill C-377 provided more accountability for union leaders. Bill C-525 required the holding of a secret ballot for the creation or abolition of trade unions. Now the Liberal government is saying, who needs secret ballots?

What about accountability? The Liberals have never liked accountability. That is why it was up to the Conservative Party to move the Federal Accountability Act as our first measure when we formed government.

As a government, we stood up on behalf of union workers. I remember the day the member brought this forward as a private member's bill. He came around and spoke to us. He talked about the union workers who had said they were having difficulty getting that type of accountability or knowing where their money was being spent.

Everyone knows that some Canadian workers are forced to pay union dues. Until the previous government took action, union bosses, those people who are in charge of the management of a union, did not consult the workers about decisions they had made on behalf of their. Union bosses were not held accountable for their management of the union dues they collected. There was a lack of transparency and accountability when It came to the actions involving where those dollars were to be spent.

There were no rules or regulations that said that the leadership was under any obligation to open the books so union members could see for themselves the various ways that the union leaders were spending union dues. Canadians could not see how much money was raised by any given union. Canadians could not see how any given union was spending its money. It was one big secret.

Sometimes the secrecy extended to union members themselves. They could not see the books of their own union. Some unions would allow members to see the books at a union meeting. Sometimes one had to ask to see the books of one's own union. Imagine anyone doing that. In all honesty, imagine a worker risking being blackballed by the union. The union could very well ask members why they wanted to see that, what they wanted, and what they were looking for. It could ask if there was there something that was bothering them or ask why they needed the information because nobody else had asked for it. Now all of a sudden the union member is the one who is almost guilty of wanting transparency. Too many union members could be intimidated to do whatever was necessary to try to see the books.

Not all union members are accountants. They do not all have commerce degrees. They are not all able to look at the books on the screen and have the union bosses stand over them, or take it home. They wanted the ability to see where some of their dollars were being spent. They may not be able to read the 100 pages of a document, while union bosses are standing over them trying to figure out what part of the document the member might want to see and for what reason he or she might want to see it.

I remember when Mr. Hiebert asked me to support the bill. He talked about the number of members who had come to him in regard to it. He had studied it. He had thought there must be more transparency than there was. He worked with opposition and government members, and he tried to drum up support for his private member's bill.

A lot of the new members across the way will find out about the process of a private member's bill. First, they will find out how difficult it is to be in that lottery and to get their name drawn, and then how difficult it is to actually work it through, especially in a majority government. I remember Mr. Russ Hiebert doing that.

I also remember union people coming in on both sides, questioning why we were doing it. I remember both union bosses and members thanking us, saying that it was about time.

The legislation he brought forward in that private member's bill lifted the veil of secrecy off the union spending. Any union member, from the comfort and safety of their home, could see their unions' books, could go through it line by line, and see where the money was being spent.

We simply made it so the leaders of the unions would make public their decisions concerning the expenditure of the union dues they had collected and any other monies that were given or raised by the union.

I think Canadians would agree that this was a fair measure. A union is a public institution. It is not a profit-chasing corporation competing in the marketplace where there may be some secrets as far as marketing their product. I think most Canadians realize that charities have to do it, as do many other different groups. It is reasonable.

The second change that the previous Conservative government made to the way that unions were run in Canada was to increase the level of democracy in how unions operated in Canada. We are a democratic country. We take very serious our democracy. We govern ourselves using the method of a secret ballot. This provides a voter with the highest level of democracy and the most freedom.

Canadians would agree that unions should also conduct their affairs at the highest level of democracy. We made the change to stop workers, union members, from having to publicly inform their colleagues whether they may actually support their union, or whether certain changes that they wanted within their union did not force them to stand up publicly when a secret ballot could really have them voice their concerns.

Our changes freed workers from pressure. Both before and during the election campaigns, unions spent millions of dollars to straight partisan ends. Union bosses can do that because they are under no obligation to tell anyone if they did. My wife is in a union; she is a registered nurse. She told me about the day, and I think it was before I was elected, when the union boss came from Edmonton to our little town and told the registered nurses how they would vote. She was sitting in the meeting. She questioned it. All of a sudden there were hums and haws, but it was intimidation. Union bosses can do that because they are under no obligation for anything.

Some unions do tell what they will do and how they are involved, but some union bosses proudly provide details of how they spend union dues fighting a political party that in some cases supported many members of that very union.

I believe, with all due respect, that the measure we are debating today is payback to the unions for them showing up when the now Prime Minister made announcements. We saw the emails. We saw them go out. They would say that Justin was in town, that they needed 100 people in the picture. I think we are now seeing some of that payback.

Other unions do say how their money is being spent. Again, we wanted to see transparency. We want to see measures brought forward so that democracy was enhanced even within the unions.

Our previous government gave union members the right to know what was going on within their union. It also gave them the right to vote. Why? Because the union is an important institution. The union, in some places, can intervene on behalf of their workers. When we do not have transparency, pretty soon we have an institution that crumbles.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House and speak to this important bill. As somebody from northern Manitoba, I am proud to come from a union town, Thompson, a proud mining town where we all know clearly how important it is to have a strong group of unions in our community. I am also proud of the role that unionized work has played in my family. My dad was a member of the important union in our community, the steelworkers, as was my grandmother. I know what it means to grow up in a household where union work means families and communities being better off.

I am also proud to rise in this House as a New Democrat. The NDP of course is a party that was born out of a labour movement, and it has always stood up for unions and the rights of Canadian workers. We have proudly voiced our fervent opposition to the former Conservative government's attempt to restrict the power of unions and to make it more difficult for workers to organize.

Unions have been a key player in the fight against inequality in our country, and they have been essential stakeholders in pressuring the government into implementing key policy changes that have benefited our entire society. From workplace safety regulations to the weekend, we must not forget the good that has come from the victories of the labour movement.

It is the labour movement, especially in a world where the middle class and the working class are shrinking in size and influence, that is a necessary counterweight to the corporate greed that has been disproportionately rising in power over the last three decades. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I rise in this House along with my colleagues to express our support for 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. We welcome the actions taken by the government and will continue to fight for the rights of working people who were undermined by the previous government for so long.

Bill C-4 would repeal two pieces of legislation, Bills C-377 and C-525, that were pushed through by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. These two anti-union bills were designed to make it harder for Canadians to join unions in the federal sector as well as to fundamentally weaken the power of unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting. Both bills have been met with widespread opposition and criticism from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, and, of course, hard-working union members and workers across the country.

Bill C-377 forced unions to file information on the Internet about the salaries of their members as well as the unions' labour and political relations and activities. This bill was put forth by the Conservatives under the guise of increased transparency, they said. However, it is crucial to note the fact that unions are already required to make their financial information available to all their members. Furthermore, the NDP as well as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada believe that the bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the right of freedom of association and the private lives of all who are members of a union. In addition, Bill C-377 would cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $21 million just to establish an electronic database needed to store this information about union members, and it would cost the Canadian public $2.1 million each year after that. By repealing this piece of legislation, it goes without saying that both the Government of Canada as well as unions themselves would be able to save millions of dollars annually.

Bill C-525 proposed to drastically change the process through which unions under federal jurisdiction become certified. The bill increased the number of membership cards needed to certify a union and eliminated the possibility of forming a union through a majority card check. Prior to this legislation, a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of its employees signed a card indicating that they wanted to be part of a union. However, Bill C-525 outlawed this process. Because of this, the bill makes it harder for workers to unionize while making it easier for unions to be decertified. As such, Bill C-525 leaves workers vulnerable to intimidation by employers or third party members.

Yes, Bill C-4 would be a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done to ensure the rights of workers and improve working conditions for all Canadians.

Now I want to acknowledge the fundamental role that unions play in Canadian society through the protection of Canadian workers, the promotion of health and safety in our workplaces, and the role they play as the collective democratic voice for working people. I want to stress the fundamental importance of unions in providing education about workers' rights and standing up against workplace bullying and harassment.

Unions have been trailblazers when it comes to ending all forms of discrimination. They have been at the forefront of fighting for women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and the rights of racialized and indigenous peoples. They contribute to democracy by giving workers collective bargaining power, thereby lowering inequality in our country.

Furthermore, a new study done by the International Monetary Fund, perhaps an unusual source for such information, indicates how increases in income inequality can be directly linked to the decline of rates of unionization. This is particularly shocking considering the IMF has actually contributed to decreased levels of unionization itself.

Moreover, a decline in unionization correlates to weaker employment laws, leaving workers vulnerable in terms of their rights and more open to exploitation. Unionization helps to equalize the distribution of wages. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each year. On average, the hourly wage of a unionized worker is $5 higher than that of a non-unionized worker. For women, that difference goes up to $6.65 an hour. Because of this, it is paramount that the importance of unions be recognized and respected accordingly.

As previously expressed, Bill C-4 is a good first step, but New Democrats are disappointed that some major actions are missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to push the government to restore good faith bargaining with public service workers, starting the repeal of division 20 of the Conservative omnibus budget bill, Bill C-59, that attacks a worker's right to sick days.

Furthermore, New Democrats call upon the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to adopt anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation immediately. The NDP will also push the government to repeal former Bill C-4 rather than just review it. This contentious legislation has been called unconstitutional, as pointed out by many, and is said to stack the deck in the government's favour by undermining fair collective bargaining.

I wish to thank all the workers, union members, labour activists, and advocates who made the repeal of these pieces of anti-union legislation possible. As a member of Parliament for the NDP, as well as the critic for jobs, employment and workplace development, it is important for me to show solidarity for our union brothers and sisters.

All those who believe that unionization is outdated need only look at how productivity gains have been divided between labour and capital over the past 30 years or so. Nowadays, capital compensation is completely out of proportion with performance, compared to the low pay labour receives. Speculation is valued more than the production of goods and services. This trend has increased in proportion with the decrease in the rate of unionization in society.

As I reiterate my support for this bill, I would like to send a clear message to the government. The structural problems that the middle class and workers in Canada are facing go beyond the scope of this bill. The fight against inequality requires a structural review of government operations, and the country is counting on the new government to do just that.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his contributions to today's debate. I found the history somewhat revisionist and I want to understand what he thinks.

He likes to say that private members' bills are a good way of doing public policy and are great for democracy. How many of these private members' bills, including Bill C-525, were totally in line with the ideology of the government of the day?

We all know that this private member's bill got through because the former PMO wanted it to get through. The Senate did not want it to get through, but the former PMO wanted it to get through.

It is a bit rich to say that these independent private members' bills somehow float out there and become law because that is how democracy works in the House. We all know that it became law because the former PMO wanted it to become law. How do you reconcile that with your position?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was the third opposition member who stated that grassroots union members absolutely support the two bills in question, when my experience has been the complete opposite.

The previous two bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, I understand, were extremely unpopular across the country. I can speak firsthand for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital that they were extremely unpopular.

On October 19, Canadians spoke. Notwithstanding the will of Canadians on October 19, my question for the hon. member is more specific than that.

There are seven provinces that have voiced their opposition to Bill C-377 because it basically duplicates work they already do at the provincial level. I am wondering if the hon. member would comment on a bill that duplicates what many provinces are already doing, with several of them speaking out against the bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to rise in the House today on behalf of the many union members who live in my great riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. My riding is home to many union members. In fact, many of my good friends and family are union members.

The Liberal Party would have Canadians believe that the Conservative Party of Canada is anti-union. That is ludicrous. We on this side of the House are pro-worker, pro-accountability, and pro-transparency. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, introduced by the previous government, made much headway in increasing both union member and non-union member confidence in unions.

One of the things I found troubling earlier this morning was my colleagues' statements on the opposite side of the House that the introduction of our legislation as two private members' bills was a back-door method of legislation. On this side of the House, we value all our members in the House, backbenchers and front benchers. Our government's record on private member's bills is better than any previous government's. The two private member's pieces of legislation that I was privileged to introduce were debated in the House and then passed into law. I will forever be grateful that as a private member I had the opportunity to introduce those bills and to see the support for them in the House and to know that they are now part of our government's legislation.

As a brief summary of the legislation the Liberal government is planning to repeal via Bill C-4, Bill C-525, the Employees' Voting Rights Act, was introduced by my hard-working colleague, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. The legislation made it mandatory that a secret ballot be conducted for the accreditation or revocation of a trade union, rather than the automatic certification of a union when a majority of employees, 50% plus one, sign their membership card. The legislation strikes a balance by creating the same process when it comes to unionizing a workplace and to revoking a union according to the employee wishes. The decision of whether to unionize rests with the employees, not with the union and not with the employer.

I would like to pose a few questions to my colleagues across the floor. First, why is the Liberal government so against secret ballot voting? We know that the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, stated at the committee charged with studying Bill C-525 that it uses secret ballot votes for internal elections and for the ratification of settlement agreements from collective bargaining. The president of PSAC, Robyn Benson had this to say:

Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples.

Furthermore, when asked if she believed that if there were to be a secret ballot vote, it should be 50% plus one of all employees, not just those present, her answer was yes, that she agreed.

Every member in the House was elected by a secret ballot vote, and on election day as nominees we are not allowed to stand beside the voting booth to tell voters to cast a ballot in our favour. I believe the hard-working men and women, my friends, union members from Kitchener-Conestoga, deserve the same privilege that we give to all constituents in our riding on federal election day, a free and secret vote. Without this commitment, employees who have not signed their membership card may not even be aware that a union certification drive is in process, and they may not be in favour of that union or its representatives.

One question that arises is whether it is even fair for them not to be consulted, since they must pay union dues and be members of the union. Another question is whether employees had signed their union card free of intimidation.

It is clear to me that allowing secret ballot voting is very common sense. However, do not just take my word for it. Here are a few others who support this legislation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business clearly pointed out that “As secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy, if the process is good enough to elect our politicians, it should be good enough to form a union.”

Everyone in the House knows how important small and medium-sized business is to the engine of the economy of Canada, and the Canadian Federation of independent Business speaks very clearly on behalf of the workers in those businesses.

The Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications group testified that it and its members also support Bill C-525.

John Mortimer, the president of the Canadian LabourWatch Association, expressed his support on behalf of his organization for Bill C-525 for many reasons, including the fact that sometimes employees are victims of inappropriate tactics and are given the wrong information so that they will sign their membership card. For example, some employees sign their card without knowing the true result, which is the unionization of their workplace.

The Canadian LabourWatch Association also commissioned a poll of unionized and formerly unionized workers, which was very helpful. It found that 86% support secret ballot voting for union accreditation.

I could go on. However, let me just quote Merit Canada. It pointed out that the old system under which employees expressed support for its union's certification by signing their membership card resulted in intimidation and manipulation by both union organizers and management.

I hope that my colleagues from the Liberal Party do not support the manipulation and intimidation of hard-working Canadians.

Bill C-525's asking for a secret ballot is just plain common sense and the very cornerstone of modern democracy, as has been pointed out many times today.

Moving now to Bill C-377, what is the Liberal government trying to accomplish by giving a free pass to unions with respect to its financial transparency?

Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), introduced by my former colleague the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, would extend the principle of public disclosure to a group of institutions that enjoy substantial public benefits, in other words, labour organizations. The basic premise of the bill is that every labour organization in Canada will file a standard set of financials each year, which will then be posted on the CRA website, much like Canadian charities already do.

These bills are common sense and, as members will hear during the remainder of my remarks, are what Canadians want. I do not understand why the current Liberal government has decided to repeal these laws that increase confidence in and the integrity of our unions as one of its first acts in this Parliament.

While I think this is common sense, let us also hear from others.

In a Leger survey conducted in 2013, consisting of 1,400 respondents, not only did 83% of Canadians surveyed indicate they wanted public disclosure but 84% of current union members surveyed also said they wanted public disclosure.

Furthermore, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supported this piece of legislation. It said that similar legislation has been in place for charities for many years and that there ought to be treatment of labour organizations analogous to that of charities.

The Quebec Employers Council also welcomed Bill C-377, citing that it is appropriate to make public the amount of dues that workers are required to pay, and which involve significant tax advantages, as well as the manner in which they are used.

This bill is actually about public disclosure, and this is a very positive step forward for unions and Canadian workers. Public disclosure will demonstrate that labour organizations spend their money wisely, effectively, and obtain good value for members' dues. This bill does not tell unions how to spend their money or restrict them in any way.

In my province of Ontario we have what we call the “sunshine list”, which makes public a list of all publicly funded employees who make over $100,000. In addition, salaries, benefits and office expenses of members of Parliament, MLAs, and others are also easy to obtain online.

Because union directors are also publicly funded through the mandatory union dues of all of their members, it only makes sense that union leaders in positions of authority and employees of the union earning more than $100,000 will have to disclose their earnings.

It is also important to recognize that the salaries of many Canadian union leaders are already published online in the United States. The U.S. has had legislation requiring public disclosure since 1959, before many of my colleagues in the House house were even born. The Liberals would have us travel back in time and limit this form of accountability.

The actions that Bill C-4 is bringing into effect would not increase the confidence that Canadians have in our unions and our leadership, and it is important that we oppose the bill at every opportunity.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today following my good friend from Edmonton Griesbach who talked about his own personal experience with his family and as a former union member himself. I hope to contribute to the debate here on Bill C-4 today, dispel some of the myths brought to this place by some of my colleagues in government, and talk in depth about the two reforms that Bill C-4 essentially would dismantle, what I would call the modernization of the labour movement from the last Parliament that is being dismantled in Bill C-4.

However first, I am concerned when members of this place suggest that those measures being unwound in Bill C-4 are a tax on union members or a tax on the labour movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have heard statistics from polls that have shown that union members support the measures contained in both Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 from the last Parliament. In many ways, the labour movement is the last large portion of our society to embrace the modern concepts of transparency that are really commonplace throughout government of all levels and throughout the charitable sector. It is sad that it takes Parliament to pull the movement into this modern age of transparency and disclosure, but it was something that was supported by union members.

There is no dismantling of rights. There is no attack, and I am going to spend a few moments to talk about what those bills contain and why it is a bad public policy move to step away from these modernization efforts for the labour movement. However, more importantly, why it is not an attack is that I, like many of my colleagues, was elected to Parliament in 2012 and in the last general election by members of unions, to a large extent.

I am very proud to have some of my best door-knockers who are either former or current members of the CAW, now Unifor, working in our auto industry at General Motors in Oshawa. I am very proud to have the strong support of members of the Power Workers' Union, working both at the Darlington generating station in my riding and at the Pickering station nearby. When I ran for office I spoke to Don MacKinnon, the head of that union, who has been a very good advocate for clean and reliable nuclear energy. I rely on the expertise that a lot of leading figures in the labour movement bring to their sectors. I consulted those same members on our trade agreements when I was parliamentary secretary for international trade in the last Parliament. I am very proud to represent these people who do get benefits from belonging to their union.

We have heard many speeches about how, over the last century, the union movement has been helpful and has advocated public policy and so on. Nothing in the two bills from the last Parliament took any of that away. It is really cowardice of debate when people have to hide the real actions of Bill C-4 behind saying unions brought us health care and unions brought us weekends. Let us talk about what was in those bills from the previous Parliament and what Bill C-4 is attempting to do. Let us not wrap it up in the trappings of unions having made a large and profound impact on our society. They have, and none of these moves were right-to-work movements or banishing unions. This was about making sure of the movement, which is supported through tax exemption status, which is supported by the Rand formula, meaning dues are paid under compulsion much like taxes are. We cannot pick or choose whether we pay this out of our paycheque. That fact means that the movement needs to embrace these concepts themselves, and it is disappointing that it did not.

For people who have been following this debate at home, Bill C-4 is essentially the new Liberal government's attempt at unwinding two very modest reforms from the previous Parliament. The first is Bill C-525, which was a bill that brought essentially the secret ballot to union certification.

It is interesting that the secret ballot has been the underpinning of our parliamentary electoral process since it was brought in by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mackenzie in 1874. I think it is now considered a fundamental element of elections in Canada, where there is a secret ballot so that people can place their X in a way they determine is best without fear of somebody watching, and without fear of repercussions.

It is essentially a basic tenet of our parliamentary democracy in Canada, yet it is somehow absurd to extend that same protection of a secret ballot to the certification vote, to truly vote how one feels is best for one's personal view. I guess by saying that it should not be there, does it mean the certification vote is somehow outside of normal tenets of democracy? That is all I can determine from some of the comments here, such as rights being taken away and attacks on the union movement.

People in Canada need to know that Bill C-525 was for the secret ballot. I am sure a lot of Canadians who do not belong to a union are probably surprised that there was no secret ballot before. This is what we are talking about.

I have heard some members say there would be intimidation by employers and that sort of thing. That is nonsense. The secret ballot is inherently secret. There is no employer there watching the vote, and the votes will not be named. Therefore, one can exercise one's democratic right to cast a ballot the way one sees fit for one's own personal views and the way one sees fit for the future of one's workforce, whether to stay in the form of a non-unionized environment or to unionize.

Really, unions should be embracing the concept of having a full and robust democratic measure as part of their originating entrance into a workplace. Why would they shy away from a secret ballot? It is a fundamental pillar for all levels of government, and the labour movement should endorse that.

Second, Bill C-4 would unwind Bill C-377, from the last Parliament. We have heard a lot of people getting very heated about that subject as well. It is similarly disappointing that such legislation had to be brought forward and that the labour movement would not itself embrace this concept.

Yet again, another Liberal government, in fact the father of the current Prime Minister, brought in access to information legislation in 1983. In subsequent years, all provincial levels of government and virtually all major municipalities have embraced this same concept of whether there would be transparency. If one pays one's taxes by compulsion, one should be able to know where that money goes and assess whether it is being well spent.

This same basic tenet extends to the charitable sector as well, which through the CRA and through its tax assistance for charitable donations, has similar responsibilities on disclosure, to allow Canadians to assess where that money was being spent. Therefore, why should one part of our society, in this case the union movement, be exempt from a generational move towards transparency?

Quite frankly, I do not understand it. With a $5,000 threshold, CRA and the Government of Canada are not looking into an organization's children's Christmas party. However, if an organization is backing a major political campaign, like the Working Families in Ontario, or sending delegates to a large convention overseas that is taking positions that would be adverse to Canadian principles, they should be able to see where that money is being spent, because the government has allowed that money to be spent on a tax-exempt basis.

Therefore, for politicians at all levels and the charitable sector, Canadians know that transparency is commonplace now. The new government mentions it on occasion. This same level of transparency has been in effect in the United States, in the brother and sister unions, since the Kennedy administration.

Therefore, with Bill C-4, two fundamental reforms that would be good for the labour movement would be withdrawn. It concerns this side of the House. Hopefully it should concern more and more Canadians.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about support for unions and so forth. I grew up in a union town, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. My dad was a union executive, and I was very proud of him, and I was a union member myself. I find it rather offensive that just because I am a Conservative and particularly a fiscal Conservative that somehow I am anti-union or we are all anti-union. We have to realize that is just a red herring.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to stand up for good hard-working Canadians, including union members, and speak against Bill C-4. I believe, as do my Conservative colleagues, that transparency and accountability are the pillars of our policies. In fact, it was our former Conservative government that created the Federal Accountability Act, and we did not stop there. As well, we created and passed legislation to ensure unions were accountable to their members and to all Canadians. Bill C-4 would threaten accountability and transparency in labour negotiations and labour relations. All Canadians should know where their money goes and be entitled to accountability.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul told the House the legislation reflects the Liberal government's “commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country”. However, in fact this bill would remove the balance struck between big union bosses and Canadians. Bill C-4 perhaps would better reflect the uncomfortably close relationship between the Liberal government and union bosses.

I would like to review the content of both bills that would be repealed by Bill C-4.

We are looking at Bill C-525. Bill C-525 addressed the concerns the union members themselves had with the previous card check system. The card check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without allowing all employees to express their opinion. In fact, the unionization of a workplace could occur without a significant proportion of the bargaining unit having been made aware. That is just wrong. In the current system, if a certification drive were to be conducted for a bargaining unit of 100 employers and the union were able to obtain the signatures of 51 members, the bargaining unit would be certified. There is not a requirement for the remaining 49% of members to be notified that a unionization drive is even taking place or to be given the opportunity to express their opinions or opposition. That is just wrong. The card check system is susceptible to abuse wherein workers could be pressured by unions and/or their their colleagues into signing a union card. A secret ballot vote allows employees to provide an honest and accurate indication of support, free from the threat of pressure or intimidation from both unions and employers.

Now let us look at Bill C-377. It also took steps to improve transparency with union funds. Previously, labour organizations that enjoyed substantial public benefits were not required to publicly disclose their financial activity. Labour organizations operate tax free, and their members receive full income tax deductibility for their dues and payments, and receive their strike pay tax free. Dues deductibility alone costs the federal treasury in the range of half a billion dollars a year. That is a staggering amount of money. Financial transparency occurs in institutions receiving substantial public benefit. This is not a new concept. Bill C-377 addressed this gap in financial accountability, extending transparency to unions. In short, the bill required that every labour organization in Canada file a standard set of financials each year, which are posted on the CRA website, much like Canadian charities already do. It was not radical legislation.

It is a fact. Canadians, union members, stakeholders, and at least members on this side of the House, support transparency and accountability.

Let me share some of the widespread support that these bills have received.

With regard to Bill C-525, in a news release from April 2014, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business welcomed its passage, stating, “secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy..”. I think virtually anybody in Canada has to agree with that statement.

A poll commissioned by the Canadian LabourWatch Association found that 86% of unionized or formerly unionized workers supported secret ballot voting for union accreditation. Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that forces union dues upon workers.

Further, in his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, John Mortimer, president of the Canadian LabourWatch Association, expressed support for Bill C-525, making the following points:

Since 1977, six provinces, including Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, have established laws guaranteeing secret ballots for union certification. The secret ballot is statutorily guaranteed for the majority of Canadians. This type of secret ballot has not caused unions to disappear, not even in Nova Scotia, where it has been in place since 1977. The rate of new unionizations is lower than before and reflects what informed employees are making as a private choice. That is what they want.

Sometimes employees are victims of inappropriate tactics and given wrong information to get them to sign a membership card. That is just wrong. For example, we know that some employees sign their card without knowing the true result, which is the unionization of their workplace. With regard to timelines for holding secret ballots, seven Canadian jurisdictions do not set timelines for votes.

Now, Bill C-377 also received significant support. I will highlight a few of them.

During his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in 2015, Aaron Wudrick, federal director, indicated that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supported the bill for the following reasons. He said that given that unions enjoy a wide range of tax benefits and special tax treatment, it would be appropriate to require them to disclose their financial information, as is the case with charities.

It is a no-brainer. Transparency is very important because it acts as a deterrent and allows a broader class of people to uncover any transgressions.

In testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, Terrance Oakey, president of Merit Canada, was in favour of Bill C-377. He said that the bill would enable Canada to catch up with other advanced economies when it comes to financial disclosure. That has to be a good thing.

The bill would not change the mandatory payment of dues by unionized workers, nor the manner in which that money is used. The bill only deals with the transparency requirements that should be imposed on labour organizations. Workers paying dues deserve to know how that money will be spent—it is the least that should happen—and Canadians have a right to know how their taxes are being used to influence public policy.

A 2011 poll by Nanos found that 86% of unionized Canadians supported greater union transparency. That is an opinion shared by 83% of the general public.

With this support, why does the Liberal government want to repeal these important pieces of legislation? I must ask the government where the fairness is for hard-working Canadians. It is just wrong-headed, and we cannot stand for this.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her very intelligent and passionate speech.

It is obvious to me that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were direct attacks on unions, in the same way that the former government liked to attack environmental groups and indigenous peoples.

Where does the hon. member think this philosophy of always attacking and dividing people came from? What does she think about that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, this House is quite different than it was in the previous Parliament. For nearly 10 years, a bitter tone pervaded everything that had to do with social justice. Everyone could see it and read it. In contrast, this government's gesture, its repealing of the legislation that came out of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, is a sign of its openness towards the driving forces of Quebec's economy.

This is what was missing during the previous government's reign. It did not really respect those who are working hard to build our economy, namely, the workers.

We wanted to believe that the vitriolic rhetoric of the Tea Party in the United States was centred around what is known as the deep south and the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the Conservatives proved to us that they were but a northern branch of the Republican Party of the Bushes, Trump, Romney, and other right-wing politicians.

Those are the people my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent is defending so blithely. I remember the day when he brandished his membership card from the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in front of the media. He did so proudly, but I think he was mistaken. He did not join the conservative party of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. He joined a party that wears a blue mask to hide its true roots, those of the defunct Canadian Alliance, a party that respects only the rich and powerful of this world and that despises the less fortunate and the working men and women of this country.

Those two bills were false fronts for hatred of social justice, for a desire to reduce workers to tools of production rather than regard them as human beings worthy of respect, for a neo-liberal ideology with the singular political goal of destroying those who would make our society more egalitarian.

Even Senator Segal, a Conservative, condemned those bills. All through those years of anti-union and anti-progressive governance, we saw special bills to force striking workers back to work, military policies that supplanted international politics, and economic policies that gave more money to the rich and took it away from our society's middle class and the poor.

Even though they are no longer in power, the Conservatives continue to cause damage that we will no longer have to bear once our nation becomes independent and free from the threat of their return to power. When they introduced their bills that were harmful to the common good, we listened to them speak about their good intentions to defend workers from the evil unions that represent them.

These same members defended policies that would reduce wages. These same members who claim to be the strongest supporters of pay equity also support policies on temporary workers, economic treaties with countries that support the exploitation of workers, policies on military contracts with countries that have no respect for human rights, especially the rights of women, and economic policies against labour-sponsored funds such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

The time had come to move on to other things and have substantive debates in the House of Commons. I am proud to be a union activist, not because my approach is based on ideology, but because I believe in having a level playing field in our society. It would be a lie to say that we currently have a level playing field. I know that my right-wing colleagues will certainly disagree. That is to be expected.

When we turn ideology and rhetoric into the dogma of governance, we end up forgetting the facts, evidence, and scientific data that should be the driving forces of our actions in government. It is not surprising that the same government that passed its ideological bills also muzzled federal government scientists at the same time. When the data contradict our beliefs, then it is best to prevent people from reading them, right?

I am a unionist because unions are useful in our society. That is something that even old-school Conservatives acknowledge. Unions here are not ideological, they are pragmatic. They adopt constructive approaches. They are able to partner with businesses and employers for the economy and for the common good. Attacking and berating them, which became commonplace under the former government, was mean-spirited and vicious. The previous government was part of the global phenomenon of violating union rights. The rich and powerful of this world want to squeeze the middle class by taking away some of the leverage it needs for success.

It was nothing short of a concerted strategy by the former prime minister and his friends in the financial community to remove workers' last defences. Without our unions, it would certainly be easier for the government to lower the minimum wage, do away with our public heath care system, and butcher the welfare state that our parents and unions fought so hard to build in the 1960s and 1970s.

Regardless of what the big guns on the right, such as the Duhaimes and the Donald Trumps of this world, may say, Quebeckers and Canadians agreed on some things. The economic ultra-liberalism that contributed to the worldwide poverty of the 1930s was not the way to go in the 21st century.

Once again, I would like to commend the government on the gesture of openness it made by introducing Bill C-4. We are far from the promised land. There are still many inequalities. However, this is a step in the right direction, and it at least shows us the direction that we should take. We have not finished talking about inequalities in the House. There are still far too many.

For nearly 40 years now, workers' purchasing power has been decreasing, while executives' salaries have been increasing. The grand scheme to tear down the welfare state across the western world has been under way for too long.

Whether we are talking about Reagan, Thatcher, whom my colleague from Outremont so admired, Bush, or our former Canadian prime minister, too many politicians deliberately lie to voters. They claim to want what is good for them, yet all the while adopt policies that favour the rich and powerful. As the saying goes, “I want what is good for you and I want your goods as well.”

The time has come to reverse the trend. The time has come to think about the group instead of the individual, and that is why we have unions. In unity there is strength, as we know, and unions help bring strength to workers around the world.

Long live Michel Chartrand, Thérèse Casgrain, Marcel Pépin, Lorraine Pagé, and my friend Réjean Parent. Long live all those who fight for social justice.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. It also happens to be my first appropriate opportunity to make a few acknowledgements. I hope, Madam Speaker, you will allow me that latitude.

First, congratulations, Madam Speaker, on your re-election to this great place and on your ascension to being one of our deputy Speakers. You are already doing a fantastic job and I know you will be dispatching fairness and justice on a regular basis for all of us.

Most important, and probably the most important words I will utter in this whole term, is to thank my constituents of Hamilton Centre for the honour of being returned to this place. This is my fifth term here, and after having been around for a while, I begin to think that at some point they will get tired of me. That day is coming. It may not be here yet. I am looking over and I see my friend from Flamborough—Glanbrook laughing, and he knows there is still a good chunk of people who wish I were not here. Nonetheless, I got enough to garner them together to get here. In all sincerity, though, there is no greater honour, as everyone knows, whether brand new here or having served here longer than I, than that feeling we have every time we walk in here and take our place in the House. It is such an honour and I thank my constituents of Hamilton Centre for that honour. I will do my best to make them feel proud of that decision.

To the matter at hand, I found the last speech quite interesting. It was quite the dance. There was no music, but a lot of dancing going on. It started in one place, moved to another place, and had the discussion go over here. When they are in opposition it is always said that, “It is not that we do not like unions, it is not that we are opposed to working people. We just have this particular problem here, here and here”. The next thing we know, they are bridging over and talking about some other darn thing.

I remember when these bills were brought in and how proud the now official opposition members were to go after the labour movement. At best, they believe that the labour movement has had its purpose, but that its purpose has now gone by and unions are no longer needed.

I would like to place on the record a 2002 study that was done of a thousand other studies on the effect of unions on national economies. In that report, it said that “high levels of unionization lead to higher income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and speedier adjustments to economic shocks.” One can only begin to imagine what kind of raving lefty would have come out with such socialistic discussions about the impact of unions on our society, and yet the author was the World Bank.

I heard the previous speaker talk about her concerns with unions. However, from my constituents in Hamilton, I know who was in the forefront of universal health care in Hamilton and Canada. It was the labour movement. I know who was in the forefront of fighting for CPP and who is in the forefront today fighting for CPP for people who do not have pensions, who do not have collective agreements. That is what the labour movement is doing. Who else is standing up for the poor in this country? Who else is standing up for the unemployed? Who else is on the front line of ensuring that we have decent minimum wage protection in this country? What about environmental protection? If members look at any demonstration, or any submission to a legislative body, they will always find the Canadian labour movement at the forefront of all the things that make this the greatest country in the world.

We are not the greatest country in the world because we have the lowest tax rate or because we have the weakest environmental protection. We are the greatest country in the world for the antithesis of that, which is that we have those protections. These do not just come about by themselves, no matter how good a government is. I will say that about NDP, Liberal, or Conservative governments, because it does not matter. There is only so much that they are going to get done, it will still require the labour movement to be there at the forefront fighting, first of all, for the rights of workers and then spending generations after that fighting to defend those rights.

However, with the last government, we saw an outright attack on the labour movement. It is interesting that the Conservatives were telling the labour movement that the unions forced dues and that their members got tax credits for their dues, therefore the public had the right to all this information. I remember the debate, and that was part of what they talked about.

It is interesting that the Conservatives said that was what they wanted to bring about, but in reality, they led an attack on the labour movement for the reasons I just said. However, interestingly, that same application could be made to the Canadian Medical Association, or the law societies, but the Conservatives did not include them.

It was supposedly about fairness for the average Canadian, the taxpayer. It was supposed to be about transparency and all this was the rightful demand of the public, so the former government said, because of tax implications. People were getting benefits from this. The unions were charging dues and members were allowed to have a tax deduction for those dues. For both of those reasons, the Conservatives said that there should be accountability. However, the legal and medical professions, although they may not call themselves unions, they de facto are. In fact, we have seen doctors go on strike in our country on quite a few occasions.

Therefore, the myth the previous government was putting forward was that this was all about the taxpayer, just like when the previous speaker said it was all about working people. All of that is a camouflage. The fact is that with Bill C-525, the Conservatives brought in the changes for certification.

By the way, I would mention the similarities between former Prime Minister Harper and former Ontario Premier Mike Harris. In addition to starting with the letter “H” and both having six letters, they even had the same chief of staff for a while—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this House to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

This bill would finally repeal the devastating attack that the former Conservative government launched against working people across this country. The two bills that would be repealed were known in the 41st Parliament as Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These bills were not only mean-spirited attacks on unions, but they were, as Jack Layton said in his last speech to the House, part of a larger agenda by a government that preyed on the concept of dividing Canadians one from the other.

New Democrats fought relentlessly against these Conservative anti-union bills, and we certainly welcome the changes of the new Liberal government. I remember when Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament against the tide of not just labour organizations but also constitutional and privacy experts. There was opposition from the insurance and mutual fund industry, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, even the Canadian Bar Association, and the National Hockey League Players' Association.

To go on about the constitutionality of the bill, the Conservatives were never good at working within our Constitution. They constantly went head-to-head with the judiciary in this country, losing big battles whenever they put Conservative legislation before Canadian constitutional values. They lost on mandatory minimums, time-served sentencing, and even tried to break a rule to allow an ineligible judge to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada.

A few years ago a whistle-blower from the Department of Justice brought to light the fact that the government was not fully vetting its legislation to see if it was constitutional or not. When Bill C-377 was tabled, it came as no surprise that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada stated that the bill would ultimately be defeated by the courts, because it went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill would violate freedom of association and the private lives of those workers who were unionized.

Now I will move on to the details of Bill C-377. It was a law that was discriminatory and imposed onerous and detailed reporting requirements on labour organizations. It was designed as a method to crush union finances and bury any action under bureaucratic red tape. Unions already do fully transparent reporting to their membership, as do many organizations and other associations that this bill did not cover.

Labour organizations were suddenly going to be subject to public, outside of their membership, disclosure to everyone. No other association would be forced to do anything similar. Why were the unions the only ones targeted? What about the clubs, the think tanks, the religious organizations, and even the council of chief executives? They were all left out.

Law societies and the Canadian Medical Association were also not subject to this law. It was a bill that was designed as a clear attack on workers' rights.

Bill C-377 was not only an ill-advised method of dividing Canadians, it was also extremely expensive. The parliamentary budget officer, a position created by the Conservative government, stated that it would cost the Canada Revenue Agency approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database for the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million per year for subsequent years.

The bill was so contentious that even Conservative Party senators fought against it. I should note the great Conservative Hugh Segal among other things mentioned that it would violate the privacy of millions, would tilt the advantage towards employers during negotiations, and was basically a declaration of war against workers. He felt it was unconstitutional and discriminatory, and was not even a dignified way to govern this country.

Repealing this bill would save millions of dollars annually, both for the government and for labour organizations. Bill C-525 was a law designed to harm and diminish unions by making it much more difficult for workers to collectively form a union, and making it much easier for a union to be decertified.

The government pushed hard for these private members' bills to be passed back in the day. It marked a trend by the Conservatives to take contentious attacks and place them in private members' bills so they were subject to less scrutiny and debate than full government legislation would have been.

Many stakeholders who were directly affected by the legislation have also applauded the government for its plan to repeal the two private members' bills.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress has been clear that these pieces of legislation were nothing more than an attempt to undermine a union's ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

In their attempt to divide Canadians, the Conservatives have always liked to attack unionized workers, as though they are the privileged of Canadian society who do nothing to help the non-unionized. The truth of course is very different. Workers and unions spend their paycheques in local communities like mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Their incomes support local businesses, and they bolster our tax base, which adds to everyone's quality of life.

The benefits that are often enjoyed by unionized workers attract and support crucial care infrastructure, such as dentists, therapists, opticians, and family lawyers, to help build vibrant communities, not to mention that the money that unionized workers contribute to their pension plan comes back to them so that they can spend it in the community. It also means that fewer workers need to rely on family or social programs to get by.

When unions have the power to stand up for fairness, they raise the bar for everyone. We can thank the labour movement for its victories in securing parental leave, workplace safety standards, minimum wages, vacation pay, and protection from discrimination and harassment for all workers in this country. It is clear that these laws had to go, and we applaud the Liberals for being on the correct side of this fight and for quickly moving to repeal this legislation.

We also know that the struggle for fair working conditions is far from over. New Democrats will continue to push the government to restore and enhance collective bargaining rights, as well as fairer working conditions for all Canadians. The fight continues as our very own NDP member for Jonquière is proposing anti-scab legislation to ensure fairness and balance in labour negotiations. The prohibition against using replacement workers would protect the interests of working Canadians and their families against the might of large, powerful, and global employers.

The New Democratic Party has deep roots in the lives of working people. After all, our party was created out of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress to be the voice of the regular working family. We follow that tradition closely, as we are proud of being the only unionized political party, where our employees have a say in their workplace.

The Liberals should be applauded for working in Parliament to give collective bargaining rights to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We trust that they will continue this trend and work with their own employees to grant them collective bargaining rights as well.

Workers in my community have brought to my attention that there are more and more part-time and contractual employees in the riding, and more needs to be done to protect them. The last review of the Canada Labour Code was done 10 years ago, in 2006. There were recommendations that came out of that review, which would specifically help precarious and part-time workers in my riding, but they were never fully implemented. New Democrats will be working hard to push the Liberals in acting on these recommendations. Part-time and contractual employees deserve the same fairness that we demand for all workers across this country.

The Canada Labour Code needs to be updated and modernized. There are sections in the code that are at least 60 years out of date. Repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are important first steps. However, it is important that we do not sit back and congratulate ourselves, as sections of our Canada Labour Code dealing with harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements need major updates.

When Tommy Douglas was premier of Saskatchewan, he knew that securing basic workers' rights was key to a just and prosperous society. He was able to get ideas from working people and implement them for the benefit of all. Tommy passed legislation establishing a 40-hour work week, paid vacations, and collective bargaining rights for all workers. Conservatives have tried to turn back the clock and strip workers of the vested rights they fought so hard to achieve. We now have much to do to enshrine protections for working families across this country.

Working people in my riding know that repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are important first steps. New Democrats will be there to hold the government's feet to the fire to ensure that we continue bettering the lives of workers from coast to coast to coast.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is a priority of our mandate. These bills need to be rescinded. Bill C-4 is required to be passed. This will put collective bargaining on the table in a better way, and will be a benefit to the employees.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-4 is passed, it will restore total fairness and balance to the Canadian labour relations system.

The repealing of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is required.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not often that we, in the House of Commons, are called upon to repeal legislation passed by the previous government. However, in this case it is absolutely necessary, and I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-4.

The reason is very clear. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 upset the balance in labour relations in Canada, giving employers a distinct advantage over unions. It is unfair, unbalanced and un-Canadian.

For example, let us take a look at how Bill C-377 impacts the collective bargaining process. On one side, we have union representatives trying to negotiate a wage increase, better working conditions or more flexible work hours and so on. On the other side, we have the employer who wants to operate as efficiently as possible in order to maximize profits.

If there is a deadlock in the bargaining, each party has their own tools to break the deadlock. Employers can lock out employees. Similarly, unions can go on strike. It is very clear that they are seen at the collective bargaining table in a truthful manner to resolve the matter.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require labour organizations and labour trusts, including unions, to file detailed financial and other information returns with the Canada Revenue Agency.

That information, such as details on their assets, their liabilities, their salaries and so on is then to be made public on the CRA's website. This means that unions must reveal how much money they have in their strike fund for a possible work stoppage. That means employers can find out how long a union could stay out if it came to a strike.

Under Bill C-377, the collective bargaining system is no longer a level playing field. It gives the employers' side a distinct advantage. By knowing that the union has only a certain amount of funds for a strike or lock-out, they know exactly how far the union can be pushed to accept less in order to avoid either of those eventualities. Does anybody really think that is fair? I do not think it is, and neither does our government.

Let us remember that collective bargaining went well for decades under the previous system.

Bill C-377 also contains other provisions that are equally unacceptable. For example, unions, but not employers, have to report salaries paid to their officers and directors. Unions, but not employers, have to reports time spent by some personnel on political lobbying and non-union related activities.

In addition, the bill duplicates existing requirements under the Canadian Labour Code that requires the unions to provide their members with reports on their financials, free of charge and on demand. Similar requirements are also already in place under many provincial labour laws.

The second bill to be repealed, Bill C-525, has been described by my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, as a solution looking for a problem. That is a very apt description.

First, what the bill changes is the way unions can become certified or decertified. Previously, unions getting themselves certified was not a big problem. Even if 35% of employees signed cards, they had to present this to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to be registered as the bargaining agent.

Unfortunately, we have seen examples of employers that will resort to any measure to deter their employees from unionizing.

What Bill C-525 does in effect is allows employers to know exactly when a union might be trying to organize a workplace union. Even though most employers act ethically to prevent unions from organizing, the point is that employers now have a powerful tool they did not have before to slow down or stop the union certification process.

Prior Bill C-525, when federally regulated private sector workers wanted to organize in a particular workplace, if a majority of the employees signed union cards, they could go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, show it the cards and the CIRB could certify them as the bargaining agent. This was the system from decades onwards. If less than a majority of employees signed union cards, but at least 35% did, certification could be done.

More generally is the ability to unfairly influence the collective bargaining process.

Canada needs a collective bargaining system, a system that is fair and balanced, a system in which both unions and employers come to the table in good faith to bargain on an equal level.

Repealing the changes made by these two bills would help correct the current imbalance. I hope all my colleagues in the House will give this measure their support.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill and talk about the restoration of a fair and balanced relationship that needs to exist in a regulatory framework for unions to ensure that workers are provided with adequate protection, and that we acknowledge that the disclosures already in place provide many of the things that the hon. members opposite talked about.

The reality is that the Canada Labour Code already provides for such disclosure, and that under Bill C-377 we are seeing a lot more red tape and are placing unions in a precarious situation of being very disadvantaged through in collective bargaining process. We can see its negatives, but we have not seen any of the positives.

It is no coincidence that the changes in Bill C-4 have been brought forward so early, as they are a recognition of this government's commitment to restoring that balance and fairness that the Prime Minister promised in the last election campaign. I would remind members that the Prime Minister had the opportunity to speak at length about the importance of restoring that balance and it became a very important plank in the last election. Certainly we heard it reiterated in the mandate letter given to the minister.

While I have a great many concerns about Bill C-377 that was adopted in the previous Parliament and which this bill would repeal, I want to focus the preponderance of my comments today on Bill C-525 and the legislative amendments proposed in that bill. Bill C-525 changed union certification and decertification processes under three federal labour relations statutes: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Prior to the amendments being enacted through Bill C-525, federally regulated unions could use what was called a card check system for certification. If a union demonstrated that a majority of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for those workers. A vote was only required if less than a majority signed, but enough to indicate a strong interest, for example, 35% under the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before being able to hold a secret vote, and required a vote even when more than 50% of workers had signed union membership cards. It made it easier for unions to be decertified by lowering the threshold to trigger a decertification vote to 40%, compared to the majority support that was previously required. Essentially, Bill C-525 makes it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize. That is not good for our economy, nor is it good for Canadians.

Unions help address inequality by helping to ensure there are fair wages. They help protect workers' safety and prevent discrimination in the workplace. They also help employers because a fair workplace is a more productive workplace, and a more productive workplace helps to grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

What Bill C-525 presented was essentially a solution in search of a problem. There were no great rallies on Parliament Hill or even in any boardrooms demanding that we change a union certification system that had worked successfully for many, many years. The card check system, whereby a union is certified by demonstrating majority support for signed union cards, has been used successfully for many years in the federal jurisdiction and in several provinces. A number of unions like Unifor and the Air Line Pilots Association argued that it is fast and efficient and much more likely to be free of employer interference than the mandatory secret ballot system brought in under Bill C-525, which we seek to repeal.

The card check system is not undemocratic. It requires majority support through signed cards, and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board has strong measures in place to ensure that this process is fair. It should also be noted that representatives from both sides of the bargaining table were highly critical of how the previous government brought in these changes. Both bills were brought in as private members' bills without consultation with either employers, unions, or other levels of government. Many argued that it set a very dangerous precedent for the future of labour reform. They are right. That precedent must be expunged. We believe that fair and balanced labour policies developed through real and meaningful consultations with unions, employers, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public are essential for harmonious labour relations.

Bill C-377 also presents problems that could be averted with proper consultation. Members have heard my colleagues talk about this in great detail, and I alluded to it earlier in my comments.

Among other things, it has the potential to seriously disrupt the collective bargaining process. For example, detailed information about unions, including information on union strike funds, will be available to employers. It seems to me like a blatant attempt to make things harder for unions.

It is essential that we have a system that is both fair and balanced, that the regulations we have in place ensure there is proper disclosure and rules in our labour negotiation process, but that we allow unions to be strong to protect the rights of workers, to ensure that our economy can grow and be productive, and that employers are treated fairly.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech, especially how he had his facts straight.

The Liberal government likes to pretend that it is fact- and evidence-based in everything it does. We heard today that in multiple polls, more than 83% of union workers were in favour of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Another fact is that without Bill C-377, there would be no financial transparency to the taxpayer for the half a billion dollars in tax credits from union dues.

I am interested in my colleague's opinion. Does he think that Bill C-4 is a fact- and evidence-based approach?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my Conservative colleagues, I rise in the House today to voice my opposition to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

The point of my speech is quite simple: I want to show Canadians and all the hard workers in my riding that the Liberal government's measures are not in the public's interest.

The Liberal government is working instead for special interest groups of which union bosses are members. Just two weeks ago, we learned that union leaders and the Liberal team made arrangements during the last election campaign. Today, in reading Bill C-4, I can see that the Liberals and union leaders are working hand in hand without any regard for the interests of workers or the general public. I must deplore this in the strongest possible terms.

First, by passing Bill C-4, the Liberal government will abolish two flagship pieces of legislation that the Conservatives put in place to protect workers and ensure union transparency. Bill C-377 provided for increased accountability on the part of union leaders by requiring unions to disclose any expenditures over $5,000 and any salaries over $100,000.

Bill C-525 required that a secret ballot vote be held to set up or do away with company unions. These provisions would have put an end to the intimidation that too often occurs during the union certification or decertification process. When employees were called upon to vote for or against the unionization of their workplace, this bill would have allowed them to do so in an informed manner via secret ballot, as is already the case in the provincial legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia.

Why do the Liberals want to do away with those provisions? Is it not legitimate for the unionization process to be transparent? Simply put, what seems to be common sense for Canadians is not for the Liberals. The fact of the matter is that it only took them a few weeks to forget their promise to be a transparent government.

Second, the Conservatives were not simply advocating for union transparency because it is a fundamental value. We were also advocating for it on economic principle. Every year, deductible union dues cost the federal government and Canadians some $500 million. A responsible government has a legitimate reason to demand accountability for these tax advantages.

A number of other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and even France, have long required labour organizations to disclose their financial statements.

Third, because I have a very hard time understanding the government's position on transparency, I wondered whether my Conservative colleagues and I are the only ones who are concerned about these issues. The answer is no. I was pleased to come across a Leger survey from 2013, which indicated that 83% of 1,400 respondents said that they supported a bill like the one the Conservatives passed.

More interestingly, 84% of workers who contribute to a union said that they wanted such a bill to be passed, which is similar to the percentage of Canadians who wanted such a bill to be passed. These percentages therefore confirm the public's position on this issue.

During the proceedings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, there were many different kinds of groups that supported the Conservative bill.

Among them were the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; LabourWatch; the Conseil du patronat du Québec; Merit Canada; the Montreal Economic Institute; the Independent Contractors and Business Association of British Columbia; the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec; Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University; Douglas J. Forer, a partner with McLennan Ross; Moin Yahya, an associate professor with the University of Alberta faculty of law; Francis Donovan, a butcher at Safeway Canada; Marc Roumy, an Air Canada flight attendant; Brian Johnston, a partner with Stewart McKelvey; the hon. Michel Bastarache, a former Supreme Court justice; and Ken Pereira, a union worker and union leader, just to name a few.

That being said, I want to assure my colleagues across the aisle that the Liberals are not the only ones who hold consultations. The Conservatives also held some, which revealed that our provisions in support of union transparency were welcome and desired.

Fourth, it is one thing for the Liberal government to ignore the surveys and the people consulted, whom I mentioned, and to believe that its position is what is best for Canadians. However, another moral principle comes to mind when I look closely at that position, and that is the principle of political independence.

In order to ensure that the government remains impartial and able to make decisions in the public interest and free from outside influences, I think it should avoid associating with lobby groups that have an interest in the business of government. That is certainly not what we are seeing at this time.

Here is how I see it. First, this is a bad law for democracy, transparency, and accountability. Second, it is pretty clear that the purpose of this law is to thank union leaders for their support in the latest election campaign. Third, the Liberal government's very first piece of legislation will take away workers' power just to make union bosses happy. Fourth, this law will not protect workers. It will open the door to workplace bullying because employees will have to state their position on unionization publicly rather than secretly. Fifth, transparency is a fundamental principle, and by overturning the old law, the Liberals are flouting this principle. Sixth, even though the law did not regulate union activities or how unions could use their money, it did provide for accountability. Seventh, unions are the only private organizations that have access to funds that people are required to pay, which is like the power to tax. Mandatory contributions, unlike voluntary contributions, should entail a moral obligation to demonstrate transparency. Eighth, since unions are already required to open their books to their members, it should not cost them much more to open their books to everyone. Ninth, union dues should not be used for purposes not approved by union members.

I did not get into politics to criticize excessively everything the government opposite does. I believe we must work together in the House to make the best possible decisions in the public interest.

That being said, I want to use this last part of my speech to share with the government the way I see things with regard to unionization, which, in my view, represents how a very large segment of the public feels about this as well.

What is more, since the Liberal government keeps saying that it wants to consult various stakeholders and different people and listen to their points of view before making decisions, then I would hope that my thoughts here will be taken into consideration.

First, as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, the former mayor of Victoriaville, and a former school principal, I have worked and negotiated with a number of union groups on many occasions. These negotiations were always carried out respectfully, and for that reason, my perception of unions and unionized employees is anything but negative.

On the contrary, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a group of individuals with common interests to ask someone to negotiate on their behalf. Essentially, the union's mission is to improve its members' working conditions, and that mission is absolutely valid and legitimate.

However, the comment made by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour that unions play a critical role in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly in safe, healthy work environments seems to suggest that the law passed by the previous government undermines the unionization principle and workers' rights, and that is completely untrue.

The minister should also know that just because employees are not unionized does not mean that their rights will not be respected. I am fortunate that my riding is home to Cascades, a family company that has been in Kingsey Falls since 1964 and still employs nearly 11,000 workers in North America and Europe.

Thanks to the management philosophy of the Lemaire brothers, employees of many of the company's operating units voluntarily chose not to unionize because they know that they are afforded favourable working conditions. This company shows that it is not necessary for employees to be unionized to have excellent working conditions. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Cascades and all of the companies across the country that take care of their employees.

Finally, the bill is a direct attack on democracy, accountability, and transparency. It does nothing to protect workers or the public.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to restore fair and responsible labour policies in Canada because unions and employers play an important role in protecting the rights of Canadian workers. They help make the middle class more accessible and help it to grow.

We need to work with labour organizations, not against them. That is why we have kept our promise and that is why I invite every member of the House to support this important bill.

We introduced Bill C-4, which repeals the legislative changes made under Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. That is an excellent decision.

Unions and labour organizations have expressed strong opposition to these two laws since they were introduced in Parliament. In spite of everything, obviously, some people may oppose Bill C-4. We are prepared to listen to the concerns of all of the parties involved.

However, I would like to be proactive and explain to the members here today that, despite what some may think, Bill C-4 will be good for labour relations across Canada. Certain supporters of Bill C-377 indicated that it was necessary to improve union financial transparency. They also said that it was necessary to ensure public access to information on union spending, given the favourable treatment that unions receive under taxation law.

However, these arguments do not hold water. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code already requires unions to provide financial statements to their members free of charge upon request. What is more, provincial labour statutes include similar requirements. Also, the onerous disclosure requirements apply only to labour organizations and labour trusts. They do not apply to other groups that also benefit from special tax breaks under the Income Tax Act. This practice discriminates against unions.

I realize that some provinces have raised questions about repealing Bill C-377. British Columbia's finance minister wrote to the Senate to express his support for this bill. He said there was merit in increasing union transparency, since unions receive tax advantages. However, as I said, these onerous disclosure requirements discriminate against unions, and British Columbia's opinion is not shared by the majority.

Seven provinces came out against Bill C-377, claiming that it encroached on their jurisdictions. These provinces are Quebec, New Brunswick, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia.

As for Bill C-525, employers and other stakeholders who support union certification by secret ballot could be displeased. They do not need to worry, though, since the previous card check system for sectors under federal jurisdiction was successful for many years. This system is still used in many provinces.

As for Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, some non-unionized members could have a problem with the repeal of Bill C-525. They could be concerned that this bill is being repealed but stakeholders have not been consulted.

I want to reassure them. We are doing this because we want to listen to all of the stakeholders. By repealing the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, we will simply go back to the way things were so that we can start over again. We will do more than our predecessors and ensure that all stakeholders are properly consulted before any changes are made to federal laws and policies.

We aim to restore a climate of co-operation and develop evidence-based policies. All parties must participate in a constructive manner.

We will use genuine consultations as the basis for developing labour policies that will make Canadian workers and employers more prosperous and improve the economy overall. Those are just some of the ways that Bill C-4 will be good for labour relations and, as a result, our economy.

It is clear that repealing the changes made by Bills C-377 and C-525 is the sensible thing to do. We are listening and acting respectfully. Our government made a commitment to enhancing Canadians' economic and social security, and that is what we are doing.

In my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, employers, unionized workers and unions have joined forces to defend our region's interests.

In a remote region such as ours, it can be hard for workers and people in general to make their voices heard. Mainstream media do not often talk about what is going on in our regions, but we are coping with major issues too. I would like to share a personal and professional experience. In the fall of 2014, when my region was contending with major cuts in several sectors of our economy, we got word that Quebec CEGEPs were slated for yet another round of cuts. At the time, I was the executive director of the CEGEP de Matane. Management and employees alike felt powerless to do anything about all of the budget cuts, which were going to result in job losses, raise the unemployment rate, which was already three times higher than the Canadian average, and exacerbate a very difficult economic situation. Rather than endure the cuts alone, I decided to get all of the CEGEP employees and their union representatives together, and I put an unusual idea to them. I suggesting holding a two-day retreat to discuss the repercussions of the cuts in the region with relevant experts and donating the equivalent of two days' salary to the CEGEP de Matane foundation. In return, I promised not to cut a single job. The goal was to mitigate the cuts and clearly demonstrate our commitment to our community, our workers, and our CEGEP.

In an unprecedented expression of solidarity, all the employees, their union representatives, their union, and the entire student population supported this initiative. We had two days dedicated to reflection, and we all contributed two days' salary to the CEGEP de Matane foundation. We mobilized a number of local socio-economic stakeholders who joined forces to defend the interests of our workers and our region.

Division never serves the community. It is time to come together and develop a relationship of trust with our workers. Together, we can create real, positive change.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today.

Governing is all about seeking a balance between things like the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and another, between social and economic values, and between labour and business.

I do not believe there has been any government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance, allowing ideology to trump evidence and political expediency to replace due process, than the previous Conservative government. Such has been the case in its actions towards labour relations and workers' rights in this country.

After years of attacks on fundamental labour rights, it is very gratifying that one of the first acts our government is doing is restoring fair and balanced labour laws that respect the integral role played by unions and their importance to a strong middle class and a fair and prosperous society.

Labour law systems are very complex. The ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of labour and management that must be respected if and when reforms are made. The federal labour relations system is well regarded and supported by both labour and employers, as the result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades in amending labour laws.

One of the most comprehensive changes in recent history to part I of the Canada Labour Code was the result of a full consultative process. It was chaired by the well-respected labour neutral, Andrew Sims, who produced a report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. Mr. Sims said that if labour law is to be changed, it should be because of two things. It should be because there is a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public's interest, or done on a consensus basis.

There are perhaps no greater examples of how the previous government showed contempt for these principles and upset the labour relations balance than the two private members' bills that Bill C-4 seeks to repeal. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were deeply ideological and highly partisan pieces of legislation that served no public good or policy objective. Their sole purpose was to diminish and weaken the labour movement in this country.

These types of labour policies, based on ideology rather than evidence, produce unstable labour laws that hurt, not help, the interests of employers, employees, and the economy in the long term.

Bill C-377 was badly crafted and is fundamentally flawed legislation that made unprecedented and unwarranted disclosure about unions and their members, as well as other organizations that do business with unions, based on no demonstrated need for this law.

Constitutional experts have said it was unconstitutional. Privacy experts believe it will violate privacy rights of millions of Canadians. Seven provinces, representing more than 80% of Canada's population, opposed it, as it interferes with provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

Even well-respected Conservatives such as retired Senator Hugh Segal said it was “badly drafted legislation, flawed, unconstitutional and technically incompetent...”.

Both the current and previous Privacy Commissioners said that the bill was a serious breach of privacy in their testimony at the House and at Senate committees. Past privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, said quite clearly that Bill C-377 was a “a serious breach of privacy.”

The current Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said more bluntly that he thought the bill goes too far. In his words, a balance should be struck between transparency, which is an important value, and privacy, which is a value that is also just as important, something Bill C-377 failed to do.

To prove how unfair and unbalanced this bill is, let me share a short story. In 2012, I wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency and asked if they could provide the same information on its employees that Bill C-377 was asking of labour organizations. Its response was that it could not provide the information. The information I received from CRA is that the Privacy Act precludes the CRA from disclosing personal information about its employees. Therefore, CRA, the agency that was set to enforce this law, could not comply with exactly what was being asked of organized labour, of unions, though the passage of Bill C-377.

The second piece of legislation that Bill C-4 will repeal is Bill C-525, the Employees' Voting Rights Act. Like Bill C-377, there was never any evidence provided in support of its need. It was simply another solution in search of a problem. Politically motivated and ideologically based, its sole goal was to make it harder for unions to certify and easier for unions to decertify.

The sponsor of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, claimed that the bill was needed because of the “mountain of complaints” regarding union coercion of workers during union certification campaigns.

He said the following in Hansard:

When we hear one person complain about the actions of union organizers, that can be dismissed as a one-off situation. However when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

That is a serious claim.

Many members might be surprised that when the chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee during study of the bill, she said that out of 4,000 decisions rendered by the CIRB in the previous 10 years, there were only two complaints of unfair labour practices by unions. That is quite a mountain. She said there were actually more founded unfair labour practice complaints against employers rather than unions.

Bill C-525 made a significant change to the fundamental rights of workers in how they organize themselves, without evidence for its need, bypassing the established consultative process that is critical to maintaining balance in labour relations. Does anyone believe that this is a responsible and fair way for government to make laws that affect the fundamental rights of Canadians?

The previous government was intent on injecting political ideology into labour relations, to a degree that has never been witnessed before at the federal level. I believe both employers and labour would agree that this does nothing to promote harmonious labour relations and is not in the best interests of the economy or our society. Governments must always seek a balance in how they govern, and perhaps no greater place is this required than in labour relations.

The stakeholders in the federal labour sector long ago developed a proven consultative process to amend federal labour legislation. Past Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments supported such a process because it provided legislative stabilities for all stakeholders, and it worked. As a result, there existed a delicate balance that served fairly the interests of employers, unions, workers, and the Canadian economy.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 politicized that process and undermined the balance in our labour relations system. They were short-sighted labour reforms made without a legitimate consultative process, driven by ideology rather than evidence.

That is why our government is repealing Bills C-377 and C-525. We are committed to the tripartite consultative process, and it is our hope that Bill C-4 will help to re-establish what Andrew Sims said was so important to our modern labour relations regime, and that is balance.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been struggling to find some rational reason why the Liberals have decided to introduce Bill C-4 to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 without any chance of allowing both bills to be tested over time.

I was a proud member of the International Association of Firefighters prior to being elected to this chamber. I started my union involvement early in my career, becoming an executive officer and secretary of our association. After a period of raising our children, I became president of our local for three years. I contributed to our provincial and international association, lobbying on behalf of firefighters and their families with all levels of government.

Our association talked about our issues to those in office and we were appreciative of the time they gave us. We hoped our talks with politicians would be in the backs of their minds when the issues came up, not just in caucus, but around the cabinet table. Political action at the time was more about education than it was about influence. There was no political action funding, no well to draw from, and it was simply a matter of working hard to have our issues understood.

As an association, we strove for better understanding and better agreements for our members. Our members came first. Now, as a member of the House, my focus does not differ. I serve in the House for the best interests of my constituents, many of whom are union members.

Last year, a Forum Research poll showed 62% of Canadians approved of Bill C-377, while only 18% disapproved of it. I am assuming that many who were asked are also union members. The survey also revealed an appetite for even greater transparency with 78% of those surveyed saying they would like to see the bill expanded to include employer groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The labour strategy has evolved. We realize that we can actually influence the decision makers beyond just education. We can actually help candidates and now parties win campaigns.

By funding campaigns with targeted political action funding, we were having an impact. When we started, there was little accounting of how much our union dues were being used for this activity. However, as the request for more direct funding was made, we were able to account for just how much funding was being directed to a political activity and it was quite a lot of money. With the ability to finance massive negative advertising campaigns against a candidate or party, a union's influence has increased exponentially in the modern political age.

Political action funding targeted directly to influence election campaigns is widespread and whether this type of engagement is ratified by the membership at large has become inconsequential.

Prior to Bill C-377, there was virtually no accounting of how much of our union dues were being used for this type of blatantly partisan political activity. To see the effect PAC funding has had, one only has to look back some 15 years in Ontario to see why this is happening now more than ever. As partners of the Liberal government in Ontario, unions have had their way with the government because the borrower is always servant to the lender. They have had the Liberal government's ear and have influenced a vast array of policies and yes, even the outcome of elections in spite of the fact that many union members do not agree with what party that money is supporting.

The union spend over the airwaves in the 2014 Ontario election should make any member of the House and members from legislatures and assemblies from coast to coast to coast blush and take notice.

Members of the House, legislatures, assemblies, and in fact unions across Canada should also heed a strong warning and look at the problems that support for a Liberal government has had on its union members in Ontario.

Failed government policies have resulted in plant closures and lost jobs, lower wages and benefits, and have caused many job and wealth creators to leave the province. Failed government policy has also resulted in choking debt and deficits. That has impacted union members in Ontario with cuts in health services and has impacted their quality of life.

I would humbly suggest that the biggest threat to the union movement and its workers in this country is not Bill C-377, but rather bad government policies. It appears that the federal Liberal government is on the same path as Ontario.

The repealing of Bill C-377 is nothing more than payback for the help the Liberals received this fall. Bill C-377 sought to establish mechanisms of transparency and accountability. I have heard the arguments against it, but the question is a simple one: What is wrong with being transparent and accountable?

A good friend of mine and former member of the House once told me that there is no monopoly on a good idea. The need for transparency in our institutions should be universally accepted in the House no matter which team we play for. Transparency is a good idea and it needs to continue to be one of the hallmarks of our Canadian democracy. It should be about what is good for all workers, and that includes trade unions. Canadian taxpayers accord individual union members deductions to support their unions under the Income Tax Act, that same deduction I benefited from as a union member for 30 and a half years.

What is wrong with transparency and disclosure? I suggest the only thing wrong with transparency and disclosure is if there is something to hide. During the election, because I was a candidate for a party that brought in Bill C-377, I heard from many fellow union members, who had been hearing from their executive and leadership how bad Bill C-377 was for labour. When I asked the members of my union and others I ran into at the door what was so bad about it, the only answer they could come up with was that it was intended to bust unions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws similar to the one brought in by the previous government exist in other countries and the union movement in those countries has not been busted. Repealing Bill C-377 does not promote an open and transparent system. Quite the contrary, it puts unions and union leaders back in the shadows, keeps memberships in the dark, and does not follow the principles of our democracy.

On the issue of Bill C-525, union certification and decertification votes can be highly charged political events that can cause union members to be intimidated by a process that exposes one's views. It can cause stress and fracture relationships. Why should they not be held in secret ballots and why should someone not have the right to keep their views tightly held to them, and them alone? Bill C-525 eliminated coercion, removed intimidation, and mirrored the right of every Canadian who casts a ballot to be entitled to cast their votes in secret and to vote with their conscience.

On February 3, 2016, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent asked a question in the House of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and she responded on behalf of the Liberal government. He asked, “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?”

Her answer to the chamber was, “it is undemocratic because the process used by the previous government did not include consultation. They did not go out into our community and apparently did not even consult with employers.”

How much consultation has the government held on repealing these acts other than to meet with those writing big cheques to the Liberal Party caucus? How much consideration is being given to allow fairly recent legislation to take root?

The U.S. passed a union transparency law in 1959, the labour-management reporting and disclosure act, or, as it was better known at the time, the union members' bill of rights. The act was intended to protect and promote democratic processes and democratic rights of union members, including the freedom to vote at meetings, to express any argument or opinions, and to voice views upon union candidates and union business. The legislation stood the test of time for nearly 40 years, before Congress made some amendments to modernize it.

The bill before the House today is not sound legislation. It is more about paying back political favours and less about the strength of unions in this country. It is not in the best interests of Canadians, and I urge all members of the House to see it for what it is and reject it as a step backward.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am a backbencher and I am new to politics. I certainly believe that everybody has a voice and everybody should have a say in what happens.

I did mention that there are a lot of union leaders in Saint John—Rothesay, but a lot of my good friends are hard-working union members. Whether union leadership or union members, it was pretty much unanimous that Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were not popular in unions. They were designed as bills that were detrimental to unions. That is why a lot of people in Saint John—Rothesay supported me.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak today. This is the first time I have risen to speak in debate. I first want to thank voters in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay for electing me. They elected me with a very strong mandate, almost 50% of the vote. I certainly want to acknowledge and thank the great MPs who ran and served in my riding before me: Rodney Weston, Paul Zed, Elsie Wayne, Gerry Merrithew, to name a few. This is a matter of note too. I am the third Liberal MP to serve in Saint John—Rothesay in the riding's history, so I am very honoured by that.

I also want to thank my great campaign team and my campaign managers, Warren Coombs and Warren Long, for their leadership in helping me along the way; and I certainly want to thank my constituents very much.

I was elected on a mandate to stand up for Canada's marginalized and middle class. The past 10 years of the Conservatives' attempts to degrade, demoralize, and dismantle unions cannot continue. That is what Bill C-4 begins to do.

I would like to begin my speech today by highlighting the proud history of unions in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. We are the first incorporated city in Canada. I am tremendously proud to represent Saint John—Rothesay in the House.

In 1851, believe it or not, Saint John stood as the third largest city in British North America, with a population of 31,000. Saint John was led by the hands of merchants, financiers, railroad men, and most importantly and significantly, shipbuilders, envisioning a prosperous economic centre. At this time, business in our great city flourished, pioneered by the shipbuilding and rail community. Saint John was a stronghold for trade unions. With united and well-represented tradespeople, Saint John was a perfect example of how unions can positively contribute to our communities. Let us not forget that it was unions that built the middle class of our country. It is unions that protect the workers. It is also the Liberal Party of Canada that is standing up for the middle class.

Saint John was a perfect example of how unions can positively contribute to our communities. As a cornerstone of business, unions created a strong and vibrant middle class that built an unrivalled shipbuilding and trade hub for Saint John.

As Saint John proved that the strength of our economy relies on the middle class, bills like Bill C-377 and C-525, and the proposed amendment from across the floor, weaken the labour movement and hold back Canadian potential. The bills must be repealed.

In 2016, unions continue to play a vital role in my riding's economy. I stand up for, and will continue to stand up for, local unions such as our local firefighters union, police union, IBEW, the Public Service Alliance, and many more. We are a union city. That is exactly what Bill C-4 does. It stands up for unions, Canadian workers, and most importantly, Canada's middle class. It is why I whole-heartedly disagree with the amendment presented by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I stand with the government in supporting Bill C-4 as currently written.

Bill C-4 should be supported by all members, without the proposed amendment, for two reasons. Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Bill C-525 was supported without evidence, and neither unions nor employers wanted it. The amendment only seeks to undermine the purpose of Bill C-4, by pitting employers against employees.

At the time, the Conservative government claimed Bill C-377 was in large part justifiable due to the complaints received from union members. Let us be clear. These complaints represented 0.0002% of the over 4 million union members in Canada, while pre-existing legislation from both provincial and federal governments already required unions to issue financial reports and make them available to members.

This did two things. It created a massive unnecessary administrative burden as well as put unions at a major disadvantage during collective bargaining, making it more difficult for unions to influence the Canadian labour landscape. That is not what this government is about. In fact, it was the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage who stated in January of 2011: “Cutting red tape is a most effective way to show that we are making government work for people, not the other way around.”

The opposition could not justify support for Bill C-377 then, and it cannot justify it with these proposed amendments.

The amendment presented before the House speaks specifically to Bill C-525 and the certification and decertification of unions. This amendment seeks to oppose the exact goal of this bill. It cites legislation that was baseless and without evidence in 2014 and continues to be so in 2016. Bill C-525 was presented on the basis of consultations with labour unions and employers. However, neither employers nor unions sought out these changes or identified a single problem in the process in relation to this amendment.

Opposing this amendment upholds the commitment of our government to building evidence-based policy. If the Conservatives ever looked at considering the evidence, they would have found that their so-called mountain of complaints, which is how it was described at the time, was a whopping six complaints out of 4,000 decisions the Canada Industrial Relations Board made in the past 10 years. Although I am not a member from British Columbia, six out of 4,000 does not seem to be a very big mountain.

This amendment states:

...the bill violates a fundamental principle of democracy by abolishing the provision that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

In fact, it does the complete opposite.

This amendment promotes a system that unions in Saint John—Rothesay and across the country agree has not been working well.

Bill C-525 eliminated card-check certification and added an unnecessary second step for certification. It has become an invitation for employers to interfere with the democratic right of workers to choose representation. Amendments made to this bill in 2014, went even further on the Conservatives' assault of democracy and the attack on unions by further lowering the threshold for decertification applications to reach a vote. It undermines collective bargaining and, to be clear, the Canadian labour movement.

I would like to clarify what the secret ballot vote-based majority discussed in the amendment actually means. It requires any organization seeking certification as a bargaining agent to enter into mandatory voting and replaces the card-check system whereby employees voice their willingness to form a union by signing a union card. In the system imposed by Bill C-525, unions require support from 50% of all employees instead of 50% of the employees who voted. If we were to apply this same logic to the 2011 election, which elected the previous Conservative government, it would have received only 23.6% of the vote, not even half of what is now required to form a union.

Numerous unions from my riding have voiced their opposition to Bill C-525, arguing that the card-check certification model is quicker, more efficient, and more likely to be free of interference.

In conclusion, as the member of Parliament from a community with a proven union track record, I unequivocally support Bill C-4 without the presented amendments. This amendment is just like Bill C-525, which is a complete assault on unions and especially employees. It has created a diluted form of democracy that gives employers too much influence over the creation of a union, and attempts to fix a problem that never existed, and is based on evidence never existed.

I am standing up for unions, and for the unions in Saint John—Rothesay, by saying no to this amendment and yes to evidence-based policies.

In closing, I would like to thank union leaders like Dave Stevens, Peter Anderson, Abel Leblanc, Pat Riley, Chuck Hickey, Darlene Bambridge, Debbie Ferguson, and other great people in the riding of Saint John—Rothesay, for taking a leadership position and helping unions grow in Saint John—Rothesay.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to follow up with the reference to Donald Trump in this chamber. I will leave it at that.

I would like to refer to Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The Conservatives often attached names to their bills. Basically these were known as bills to create two straw men. It was really an attempt to create an issue that had not existed and they sought a solution to a problem that did not exist. I say that because unions and corporations are barred from political donations.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien brought this to the House, and it was something that I and my colleagues supported. It has been a good way going forward, and has been replicated by provincial NDP governments to ensure ordinary voters and citizens have as much of an impact on the voting process as larger and medium-sized corporations, big unions, and small unions do.

Another good change I saw was the limitations put on some of the lobbying activity that took place related to those donations. I often saw, through TPP grants, a former program, the government of the day, either the Conservatives or the Liberals, would have large grant donations go to companies under the TPP program. Those companies then would spend hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the party. That was a bad practice.

Another bad practice was related to the funds that members of Parliament were allowed to keep in secrecy, different from the riding association. In the past a number of different MPs were able to accumulate funds independently. That has changed as well.

Those contributions, be it political, union, or corporate donations, are gone. Those were good, credible movements made by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. I give him credit for that because this is a better place and more reflective of the people.

With regard to the tone we heard from union bosses, this is nothing more than passive aggressive attacks on their institutions and Canadians who are democratically elected to their positions through their membership, and membership reviews. In fact, if the union collectively bargains for an agreement and the membership turns it down, it could then remove the leadership for the collective bargaining.

Sometimes it is done voluntarily, when the leadership recognizes it has missed the point from the workers. Most recently, we saw this take place in Ontario with public servants of correctional facilities. An agreement was turned down, and the message to the union negotiators, including the executive, was that greater accountability was needed and not enough was being done to win their support.

There are processes in place for accountability. Union members can get annual reports.

I would like to talk a little about some big union bosses, Rob from CUPE Local 82 and Dino from UNIFOR Local 444. We had a skate and donate program. CUPE Local 82 members took Family Day off and volunteered to help raise money for a local women's shelter and our downtown mission. I was fortunate to get two children's bicycles from UNIFOR Local 444. There were no complaints whatsoever. There were non-union, union, and other people from the not-for-profit sector there. We tripled our donations for those organizations and food banks. We also brought in triple the amount of food.

Big union bosses contribute so much on a regular basis to social justice causes; everything from refugees to a number of different programs, including food banks. They hold press conferences. Local 200 donates to eight children's groups. This is in the Windsor Star. It is in the public. All the members from local 200 are Ford workers. They have had a struggle with this economy. It is because of their quality of work, that we have not lost more jobs. We have seen the failed practices of Liberal governments in the past and the former Conservative government with respect to the auto industry, which shrank from number two in the world in assembly to number eight.

Despite that, we have investment taking place because the members of the unions are good workers and they run a series of health and safety programs to ensure injury reduction in the workplace. Unions have bargained for those rights to increase the productivity of the workers. Because of that, without any government investment at all, Fiat has invested in the Windsor Chrysler assembly plant. It is now hiring 1,000 workers to increase production for the new minivan now known as the Pacifica.

Despite the economic conditions, this plant is the number one manufacturing facility since World War II. It has been operating now for over 10 years on three shifts, and has been making money for the company, rescuing it at different times. As well, the unions have been donating money on a regular basis. Members know this because it has been in the paper. Local 200 has given to the autism society of Windsor and Essex, the Bulimia Anorexia Nervosa Association, the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Child Abuse Prevention Portal, Computers for Kids, Childhood Leukemia Foundation, Canadian Mental Health Association, Griefworks children's program, Jumpstart, and the Sunshine Foundation Dreams for Kids.

This is not only published in the Windsor Star, but it also is also publicized in the general media through TV and radio. Therefore, union members know exactly what is taking place because they are tuned in. We have had long-standing representation from their executives, but they have had to win their workers over. That is done mostly through the confidence in their collective bargaining agreement and through their actions in the public.

There are hundreds of thousands of dollars locally in my community, and I am proud to say I have a union town. The hypocrisy about this is when we talk about secret votes. Let us set the record straight. Unions are not allowed secret votes, but it is okay for members of Parliament to have a secret vote to elect a Speaker. There is no problem with that. We have the Board of Internal Economy committee. We hunker down behind closed doors and nothing goes public, and that is okay. We have different rules.

When I was a city councillor, and that was a while ago, we could only go in camera, or behind closed doors when the public and media were excluded, for issues related to property, personnel, and conflict of interest. There were very specific rules. However, what I have seen in my years here is that if somebody sneezes, the committee can go in camera. It is a ridiculous process and it shuts the doors to accountability. Although the taping continues, we cannot make the information public later on. Member can access it to listen to the proceedings, but they cannot talk about it. It is outrageous that this hypocrisy takes place.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 trample on a number of different rights, which are often looked at by experts as constitutionally unacceptable. Most important, they will also cost Canadian taxpayers over $20 million just to instate a program and an additional $5 million for one bill alone. It is a cost that should not be accepted. Therefore, I and my colleagues support Bill C-4.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, obviously, with regard to what she is talking about right now, we will let the discussions unfold. I have always had a deep respect for public sector workers. I have always had respect for them, their remuneration, and anything dealing with the benefits they receive. Yes, I do. It is a negotiation between the government and the union. I realize that. I will leave that at what it is right now and speak about it later when the time comes to vote on that particular legislation.

What I am focused on right now is untangling the mess in Bill C-4, and I thank the member for her comments about it. She supports Bill C-4, and I appreciate that support for all the reasons we do: the injustices in the particular provisions contained within Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on the bill thus far.

This exercise is not so much about outlining the vision of the legislation that we have before us, but about untangling what has been tangled before. Therefore, we now find ourselves in this position where we are taking back two particular bills.

I will not specifically address the issue of private members' bills and how they are being used, whether for nefarious reasons or not. Personally, I respect private members' bills, no matter what they are. They are from a member and there is a reason they exist. However, I would like to attack these particular bills based on their policies and how they are unfair in this context.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were bills that I did not support from the beginning. Therefore, we need to undo what has been done in order to proceed any further, and Bill C-4 would do just that.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 passed without the extensive consultation process traditionally used for labour relations law reform. This is what we call the tripartite way of doing things. We have the government, the union and organized labour and, of course, we have the employers, all of which need to be consulted on something as important as this, because it affects so many Canadians across the country. Changes to labour relations legislation has always been preceded by this.

I have two examples of how this was done. I would like to bring these examples to the House because they illustrate the way things should be done using the tripartite process.

In 1995, the Sims task force did extensive public consultations on part 1 of the Canada Labour Code, and included labour, employers, and government stakeholders. The name of the report is “Seeking a Balance”, which formed the basis of major changes that came into effect in 1999. Going further back to 1978, the second example I would like to use, was the Woods task force, which was another tripartite consultative process. It was used to bring about change to the federal industrial relations system.

However, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, there was not much consultation. I am not sure of all the work that the members did in response to these two bills, but I would assume that the opposition during the committee process both here in the House and in the Senate illustrates that a lot of consultation did not take place in this tripartite manner.

I will go to the part where the bill talks about some of the other non-labour practices of the former government. Of course, in many situations the Conservatives went against many of the unions and organized labour, and a result caused a very poisoned atmosphere over the past while. Whenever we heard the government talk about big union bosses and the like, it created a stir among organized labour and many governments, both provincial and here in Ottawa.

Here are some of the rules the Conservatives brought in: a requirement to provide information on the time spent by officers on political lobbying, which would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website; and an obligation on unions to provide their financial statements to their own members for free and when they are asked for it.

This was almost a situation where the Conservatives wanted to create a solution to a problem that did not exist. They did so without the right amount of consultation and, as a result, neglected to see some of the steps that had been taken over the past 20 to 25 years by organized labour, employers and the associations they are represented by.

Bill C-377 was directed solely at labour organizations, and that was quite evident during the evidence that was given here in the House and in both House and Senate committees. It was directed at labour trusts and not at any other professional associations, which, by the way, benefited from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act, but they were not specifically told to be more transparent as well.

As hon. colleagues will recall, the Minister of National Revenue has waived the reporting requirements for 2016 in Bill C-377 knowing that we intend to work to repeal the bill.

I will go back to the debate that took place, before we get into Bill C-4. When Bill C-377 went to the Senate, a colleague of ours by the name of Hugh Segal, a Conservative senator at the time, was vociferously against the bill, to the point where he had brought amendments that were accepted at the time. I will read an editorial he did after retiring from the Senate about how he was against Bill C-377 and its fundamental principles. I will quote from his editorial:

The Canadian Bar Association questioned its constitutionality, as it sought to circumvent normal provincial jurisdiction over labour relations and trade unions by imposing Canada Revenue Agency reporting requirements via federal statute.

There he talked about the constitutional crisis that had been raised by this particular situation. We can question the constitutionality of the bill as defined by the powers directed by the provincial governments and the federal government, which are laid out quite clearly.

Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal went on to say:

There was also the issue raised by many witnesses before the committee that reporting relationships for small expenditures being imposed on unions and union locals were not being imposed on other corporate or charitable/not-for-profit groups.

We saw this in the House of Commons testimony as well, when witnesses talked about how the same onus was not put on other associations to divulge or make transparent the activities they do and the contributions they receive, including from whom, which really would have created a balance.

The imbalance during labour negotiations was also talked about and mentioned in Hugh Segal's article and the point was made that information would be divulged by local labour organizations to the point where it would put them at a distinct disadvantage in certain negotiations.

I want to thank him for doing that, because I thought that in earnest he had put together some very viable amendments. Let us face it, like every bill of this size, there are good points and there are bad points, but Conservative Senator Hugh Segal attempted to make amendments. I should not say “attempted”, because he actually did make them. His amendments were accepted by members of the Senate, and then the bill was sent back here to the House for it to address it once more with those fixes in place. The House was prorogued.

Here, I know that everyone is just waiting to hear how this works, right? It is that type of day.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is the hub of what we are talking about here in this debate on Bill C-4, brought forward by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

It is very true that the intimidation that I spoke about in my own remarks here is exactly why they need to have a secret ballot. Under the old mechanisms, a 35% sign-up gave them a union, but they had to have 50% to decertify a union. My colleague brought in Bill C-525, one of the first bills that I had the opportunity to speak to in this House. We levelled it at 40% either way, and that does still not even require half. It is a very fair piece of legislation that was on the books, and that is why I make the comment and the point that the Liberals are trying to fix something that is not broken.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier the Liberals brought up the fact that the argument that Bill C-377 was about transparency was false. The unions already have a legal obligation to provide detailed financial statements. Bill C-377 does not require anything or demand transparency from other professional associations, such as the Conseil du patronat du Québec, or chambers of commerce. This is a two-tiered approach.

As far as Bill C-525 is concerned, similar legislation was passed in the United States and the unionization rate dropped from 35% to 11%. Organized labour is the middle class and in Quebec that means teachers, nurses, bus drivers, and public servants.

Why are the Conservatives against the middle class?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-4, which would roll back the rights of hard-working union members and repeal transparency legislation that finally allowed some sunshine to be let into the financial ledgers of opaque unions.

I respect the Minister of Employment. I have had the pleasure of getting to know her over the past 16 years and enjoyed the time we spent together in the Manitoba legislature. I remember that my hon. friend and her NDP colleagues at the time introduced a similar bill in 2000 and rammed it through the Manitoba legislature, a bill that massively favoured the interests of union elites and took away the ability of union members to stop their union dues paying for their union bosses' political agendas.

I also noted her comments in the House about how Bill C-4 would improve Canada's economy. I only pray that her now Liberal government does not increase Canada's debt by over 500% as her former NDP colleagues have done in Manitoba since her days in government. It is also interesting to note that at that time, former Liberal MP Jon Gerrard and leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party not only spoke against this legislation but he voted against it as well.

Today I want to talk about three things: first, the flawed motivation the Liberals have for introducing this legislation at this time; second, the importance of a secret ballot as a pillar of our democratic institutions; and third, the principle of fairness for certification and decertification.

The timing of this legislation leads me to believe that the new Liberal government is on manoeuvres. The fact that even the Liberal minister who introduced this legislation admitted that the bill was quickly tabled leads me to believe that ulterior motives are behind it.

It is too easy to just assume that this legislation is a reward for all the unions that backed the Liberals in the last election. Not even the Liberal government would change the law to remove mandatory secret ballots for union workers as a quick “thank you” to the unions that actively and publicly supported them but also spent thousands upon thousands if not millions of workers' dollars attacking the Conservative Party.

The big issue here is not Bill C-4 itself. It is not even Bill C-5, the bill the Liberals introduced next to settle their union debts. We have to look at the big picture here. It is not just that the Liberals owe some of their election victory to the thousands of workers' dollars the union spent against us, it is that the Liberals are using the rights of workers across the country as a bargaining chip, literally.

The lightening speed of the bill's introduction can only be explained by the looming spectre of collective bargaining the Liberals have coming with their own public service unions. Quite simply, they are trading the rights of hard-working Canadians in the hope of a smoother ride at their own negotiating table. It leads me to ask: did the Liberals care about union rank and file or only about making their own lives easier? It is clear that the Liberals are introducing this legislation for their own ends and not to solve a problem that actually exists.

This leads me to my second point: the importance of the secret ballot as a democratic principle. Each hon. member in the chamber is here today because residents in their ridings chose to give them the most personal thing they possess, their vote. We have no higher duty in our role as members than to safeguard the democratic principles that hold our country together. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process. It seems absurd to me that a member of the House could get up and argue that we need less voter protection, that we need less transparency, that we need less democracy. It seems absurd to me that a member of the House could get up and argue that we need more secrecy, that we need more union intimidation, and that we need more power for big union bosses.

The Liberals are creating a problem that does not exist. Nobody is banging down my door, nobody is calling my office, and nobody is emailing me saying they want workers to be stripped of the right to a secret ballot. Even the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada Robyn Benson said so much herself when she testified in committee in 2014, “Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples.”

The old card check system allowed for a workplace to be unionized without letting all employees have their say. In fact, unionization could proceed with a significant portion of the workers having no idea unionization is even going on.

As many of my hon. colleagues will know from their experience in electoral campaigns, candidates often spend their time going door to door, asking for support of their friends and neighbours. Most say yes. Sometimes they mean it, and sometimes they just want them to get off the porch or do not feel comfortable saying no to their face. It is a good thing that candidates cannot force people to vote at the door when they are canvassing; otherwise, the potential for voter intimidation would be disturbing, indeed. It is a good thing we have a secret ballot vote later to decide who the MP will be.

The former card check system, without a mandatory secret ballot, was ripe for intimidation, intentional or not. In this system, workers could be pressured by unions or their colleagues in the signing of a union card. I ask colleagues to imagine what it feels like in a workplace full of tension, where a worker is on the fence about joining a union but is bombarded by peer pressure from all sides.

The only true way to safeguard the rights of these workers is to let them express their true wishes through a vote, and the only way to do this properly is through a secret ballot. This notion enjoys widespread support across Canada and 5 of 10 Canadian provinces have mandatory secret ballot vote legislation. The Liberals have absolutely no good reason to get rid of this vital check.

Finally, let me now turn to one specific detail in the bill, that which deals with the number of votes it takes to certify or decertify a union. Before Bill C-525, it took the signatures of 35% of the bargaining unit to trigger the process to certify a union, while it took 50% to decertify it.

Bill C-525 is grounded in the core principle of creating an equal and fair playing field for supporters and opponents of unionization. We believe that it should be up to the workers to decide, not the employers, and not the union bosses. This was achieved by setting the bar for both certification and decertification processes at 40%; a wholly reasonable number to trigger a vote that necessarily involves wide-ranging consultation.

Now, the Liberals are trying to narrow the circle of people that unions and employees need to involve to make decisions; ultimately, making the process less democratic.

The bill is all about narrowing the democratic legitimacy of unions and scaling back the rights of workers to select their representatives and to determine their own fate. It is truly an affront to democracy for elected members of this chamber to demand that other institutions in their country be made less democratic, that they be made more exclusive.

As the representative of the residents of Brandon—Souris, I cannot support the legislation. It is clearly designed to settle Liberal debts to unions from their last election campaign, to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot, and to create an uneven playing field for workers to determine their own fate.

I encourage all members of this House to vote against the bill.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House to speak in support of Bill C-4, and with it the repeal of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-4 is an important step forward and yet another example of this government following through on our promises.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that this is my first time rising in the House to speak in debate since being elected by the great people of Newmarket—Aurora. I want to thank the voters who placed their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa.

I also want to thank the hundreds of volunteers who supported our campaign during the election. As a long-time resident of my community, I am truly honoured by this. I particularly want to thank my wife Andrea, and our two sons, without whom the success of the campaign would not have been possible.

I look forward to working with all members in this House in an effort to accomplish great things for our great country.

There is an important topic in front of us today, and that is Bill C-4. This government recognizes the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and in helping to ensure a strong and prosperous middle class. Bill C-4 is an integral step to ensuring Canada's labour laws best foster positive and productive working relationships between employees and employers, an approach that strives for balance. If we look to Bills C-377 and C-525, the Employees’ Voting Rights Act, it is clear that balance was not the objective.

What is also clear is that a number of legitimate concerns were raised by stakeholders, which were ultimately ignored by the previous government. While it rushed to pass these bills just before the election for partisan gain and as a tool to punish unions, Bill C-4 would go a long way to restoring the fairness and balance that was lost under the previous bills. Not only did the legislation diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement, it was also counterproductive to ensuring a positive work environment. The bills were political gimmicks used for partisan gain and nothing more. They addressed no pressing problem, no great evil, and merely duplicated much of the legislation found in the Canada Labour Code and provincial regulations. We campaigned, and rightfully so, on repealing these hyperpartisan acts, and today we are closer to doing so.

It was clear from the beginning that Bill C-377 would create an unnecessary advantage for unions during collective bargaining, while Bill C-525 would make it more challenging to unionize and much easier for bargaining agents to be decertified. This meant that union members already facing challenging conditions when going through the collective bargaining process would have to tackle even more red tape and more uncertainty. This government wants to eliminate the unnecessary red tape and allow Canadians access to the kind of productive, positive working relationship between employees and employers that unions strive for and Canadians deserve. We will accomplish this through Bill C-4.

After the introduction of Bill C-377 by the last government, a number of high profile organizations were vocal about their opposition to it, including the Canadian Bar Association, the association representing police unions, and the federal Privacy Commissioner, to name a few. These organizations argued that Bill C-377 is ultimately an invasion of privacy for the significant number of people falling under its broad reporting requirements. Through several well-crafted and thoughtful, albeit ignored submissions, the Canadian Bar Association warned that this bill interferes with the internal administration and operations of a union, which is likely prohibited under the constitutional protection of freedom of association. Many provincial governments and employees agree, and the Alberta union of public employees launched a constitutional challenge against the legislation.

Beyond the likely unconstitutionality of Bill C-377, it would also be impractical to administer, including the high cost this would place on the Canada Revenue Agency to process the increased volume of disclosure. Though it is always easy to increase regulation or create more red tape, the costs, whether to the organization, or in this case to the government agency, can be significant and should not be overlooked. This is yet another reason to repeal this bill.

While the Conservatives wanted to increase the number of hoops for unions and their members to jump through, this government is committed to eliminating them.

To say that these bills were not a highly partisan move by the previous government would be false. All we need to do is look back over two years ago, when on June 26, 2013, a Friday afternoon just days before the summer recess, 16 Conservative senators broke ranks and voted to gut Bill C-377 and send the amended legislation back to this place. Parliament was prorogued before members of the House could deal with it, sending it back to the Senate without any changes. It took another two years before the long reach of the former PMO finally managed to accomplish what it set out to do in the first place and the law came into force.

Aside from the large number of organizations that were quite vocal in their condemnation of Bill C-377, a number of provinces, seven to be exact, also stood in opposition to it. These provinces already implement strong and important requirements for financial disclosure among the unions. Duplicating these measures not only encroaches on the jurisdiction of these provinces but also creates undue adversity for unions. Above and beyond these duplications, Bill C-377 also goes a step further and requires labour organizations to disclose more information than required of any other organization. This unfair treatment would ultimately have severe consequences on how unions operate in serving their members. Our government wants to protect the role of the union on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who rely on them. Unions are a legitimate part of the Canadian economy and its social fabric.

Bill C-4 recognizes the concerns that were raised months and in some cases years ago, and addresses them by allowing the provinces to continue their work in their jurisdiction. Bill C-4 would also ensure that labour issues are free of the potential breaches of individual privacy rights that were so obviously threatened by Bill C-377. The provinces play an important role in securing the transparency and accountability of unions, and through the imposition of Bill C-377, labour units are thrust into unfair circumstances that make it challenging and sometimes impossible to be compliant.

Bill C-4 would clean up the mess that Bill C-377 left behind. It would restore balance to existing relations between unions and employers. It would get rid of the duplication of reporting requirements. It would remove the discriminatory nature of Bill C-377, and it would uphold the privacy of all parties.

This government has also been steadfast in its position on how best to rebalance the rights of workers and employers in Canada. Bill C-4 will be a welcome relief to the past government's back-door nature, exemplified by Bill C-525, a private member's bill that had no stakeholder consultation whatsoever yet will wield significant impact.

Bill C-525's impact spreads deep, from the way unions can form to how they operate, and ultimately whether or not they can decertify. Bill C-525 put in place a requirement for a majority secret ballot vote by employees before any bargaining unit can be certified or decertified, a clear and obvious attack on unions by the previous government. By changing these thresholds under Bill C-525, not only did the previous government make it harder for bargaining agents to be certified, it made it easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. Bill C-4 will go a long way to re-establishing a positive working relationship between employees and employers to allow for a more efficient, quicker process. Through the repeal of Bill C-525, I am proud to say that the certification process will be more efficient and more likely to be free of employer interference.

This government will work hard for the rights of workers and employers across Canada, and Bill C-4 is the first step in rectifying the partisan attacks on hard-working Canadians by the past government.

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to discuss such an important bill, which affects over 18,000 labour entities in Canada, including locals found in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora. This government stood before Canadians last October and made a commitment to voters that if the Liberal Party formed government, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 would be repealed. Well here we are, a little over 100 days later, doing exactly that. This is a government that believes in bargaining in good faith and that unions play an important and legitimate role in the success of our economy. I am proud to have this opportunity in the House to defend those rights and look forward to a productive and respectful working relationship with labour unions moving forward. I urge all members to do the right thing and support Bill C-4.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-4, which was introduced by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to repeal the legislative changes made in the previous Parliament by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

In the broader strokes, this particular bill ultimately aims to restore balance and a fairer approach in labour relations here in Canada. It seeks to restore the balance between employers, workers and, I would note, the government. This is ultimately what I found the most offensive part of the previous two private members' bills that were introduced and passed in the previous 41st Parliament, the notion of actually making sure there was a broad consultative process. From my perspective, because it was introduced as private members' legislation, it did not afford the same kind of opportunity that a piece of government legislation would have done. Had it been introduced by the government, the minister for employment would have been responsible for a broad consultative process with workers, labour unions, and other interested parties. Instead, it was done under private members' legislation.

I listened to some of the earlier commentary that our concern about private members' legislation somehow demeans the value of such legislation. That is not the case. There are appropriate times and ways in which private members' legislation should be brought forth, but there is no guarantee under private members' legislation of the same opportunity for a broad consultative approach that can be done by way of a government bill. For us, the reasons for bringing forth Bill C-4 are not only that it was a campaign platform commitment, but more importantly that of making sure that we do things by way of broadly consulting all Canadians. From my perspective, the former Bills C-377 and C-525 seem to be solutions in search of a problem when there was not a fundamental problem.

The other issue I want to raise is that the fundamental outcome of this legislation being put forward was to freeze labour relations in Canada. At its core, this approach by the previous government was fundamentally flawed. If we are to effectively move our economy forward, we have to bring everyone together, rather than taking the approach of the previous government which sought to divide people. That, again, was at the fundamental heart of those two pieces of private members' legislation.

I would like to use my time today to discuss the details of these two pieces of legislation, why they would be repealed by this government, and what the ultimate impact might be on unions and workers. In turn, this will give Canadians a sense of the benefit of repealing the legislation, as we are proposing under Bill C-4.

Let me begin with Bill C-377. This private member's legislation was introduced by the former member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Russ Hiebert. As I understood it, the purpose of the bill was essentially to force labour organizations and labour trusts to provide detailed financial and other information to the Canada Revenue Agency. That would include things like disclosure of salaries, time spent working on political and lobbying activities, and so forth.

From my perspective, the issue was not so much the disclosure but the fact it would apply only to labour unions. This information was not being required more broadly from other organizations, such as professional organizations. They were not asked to have the same standard of disclosure.

Therefore, from my perspective, that is somewhat problematic. While it might not seem, as framed by the members of the official opposition, that public disclosure is not unreasonable, if we really dig down deep into the particular issue, we will see there are some serious and substantive ramifications with their approach.

First, it creates an extra level of unnecessary and, ironically, by a government that was seeking to reduce red tape, a more bureaucratic process. The kinds of regulatory requirements that would be imposed upon smaller unions to comply with the requirements under Bill C-377 is particularly odious.

As well, the Canada Revenue Agency would also have to share this burden, multiplying the amount of the work the CRA would have to do. As a result, that cost burden would have been ultimately borne by all taxpayers.

The proposed changes were unnecessary because unions were already financially accountable to their members under the Canada Labour Code.

Provinces, in many instances, I believe in seven jurisdictions, indicated that this was also an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. Many of them felt this legislation was potentially ultra vires of the provincial sphere. I find that ironic coming from that party, which talks so much about the importance of preserving the rights of provinces. This is already being regulated. Therefore, Bill C-377 imposes large financial and administrative burdens on labour organizations and labour trusts that were not ultimately required for others.

While the administrative burden and reporting requirements are significant, it would also have a chilling effect on the collective bargaining process and, potentially, give an unfair advantage to employers at the bargaining table because of the requirements of financial disclosure. For example, because of the nature of those disclosures, information about the strike funds of unions would potentially be available to employers. That same reciprocity does not exist for the unions; knowing the capacity of the employer to deal with a strike situation. As a result, the employer would have the advantage of knowing how long a union member might be able to be sustained in a strike position. It was not ultimately a function of an even application of so-called transparency in Bill C-377.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This was, of course, a private member's bill that was introduced by the current member for Red Deer—Lacombe. The bill basically attempts to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which ultimately affects how unions are certified and decertified.

In a nutshell, that legislation was an attempt to make it more difficult for unions to ultimately get certification. It was not just problematic for unions, but also imposed some serious burdens on others as well. For example, there were real potential implications for a number of agencies, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. These boards would have had to bear the additional administrative cost and logistical responsibilities in holding representation votes.

Under these changes, rather than under the CIRB's previous requirement to hold a vote to certify a union in roughly 20% of cases where less than a majority of workers have signed union cards, ultimately this would have meant a fivefold increase in work. Therefore, these bills are not a contribution to labour relations in Canada.

At the end of the day, these two pieces of legislation have done more harm to the nature of labour relations in Canada and they need to be repealed. I welcome the debate on this subject.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Liberal government. Since it was elected in October last year, the new Prime Minister has promised more accountability, more transparency, and more openness, yet even though he put this in the mandate letters for his ministers and in fact he said, “We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government”, why is it that this, one of the Liberals' first pieces of legislation, in fact, would gut transparency and accountability that was created by legislation that we, as the Conservative government, brought in?

Repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 sends a very clear message: The Liberals care more about thanking union bosses who helped them get elected than they care about the hard-working union members. These union members are the ones whose dues were spent without consultation. Union leaders need to be held accountable, and they need to tell their members and the public how their tax-advantaged income is spent.

Our Conservative government was a strong supporter of accountability. Our Conservative government introduced the Federal Accountability Act and other legislation designed to increase transparency in government agencies and crown corporations. Bill C-377 was simply about transparency requirements that fall upon entities that enjoy public trust and will allow Canada to catch up with other advanced economies when it comes to financial disclosure.

It is important to note that the union funding model itself delivers over $4.5 billion annually to labour organizations in Canada. If individuals work in a unionized workplace, they are required by law to pay dues. If they refuse, they are fired. This financial power alone should be reason enough to require enhanced transparency, and I will say a little more about that shortly.

The workers are forced to make these contributions, including those in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk. They deserve to know how their money is being spent, as do members of the general public who subsidize this revenue through the tax system.

It should come as no surprise that a Nanos poll found that 86% of unionized Canadians support greater transparency for labour organizations, and a 2013 Leger survey said that 83% of all working Canadians want our union leaders to follow the example set by other nations' union leaders who joined with government to achieve public disclosure. Many of Canada's labour unions publicly supported Bill C-377. This is what Marc Roumy, a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees had to say:

...many of my colleagues and [I] believe our union would be stronger if we had a truly open and easy access to our union's financial statements. If we have nothing to hide...

—then they should be able to get detailed financial statements, which they have fought for, for years.

If we are looking for support for these measures, look no further than the former head of the AFL-CIO, which is the largest labour organization in the United States. George Meany, who testified at the U.S. Senate union disclosure hearings said:

All of these [transparency] bills are based on...the goldfish bowl theory, the concept that reporting and public disclosure of union finances...will either eliminate or tend to discourage the abuses.... The AFL-CIO firmly believes this theory to be sound.

Even a former Liberal cabinet minister, Jean Lapierre, voiced his support for Bill C-377, stating:

Frankly, I agree with that bill because I think now every organization has to be transparent. The unions, a lot of times, have acted like they were private clubs. And so I think everybody should go to more transparency and I think that the initiative is welcomed by the membership and also by the public at large because why would you hide your financial statements if you get all those tax credits and what have you? So no, I think it's long overdue.

Canadian labour organizations receive over $400 million every year in tax benefits. The union dues are tax deductible and all revenues are tax exempt. These tax-exempt funds, drawn from mandatory dues, are funnelled into a wide range of causes, many of which have nothing to do with the collective bargaining process.

Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being used to influence public policy, since, unlike charities, no constraints are put on the political activities of labour organizations. Sadly, unions are able to force employees to pay for the funding of political parties and lobbying activities they do not even support. For example, the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada stated after the vote to merge his union with the CAW, “Can you imagine what it will mean to the CEP, the CAW when we’re the first unionized party that governs a country?”

I think Canadians deserve to know how the so-called super-unions plan to use the hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal to achieve that end.

Labour organizations, quite frankly, enjoy a more privileged position in our society and economy than any other entity, yet they have no public reporting requirements, unlike charities; publicly traded companies; federal, provincial, and municipal governments; government agencies; boards; crown corporations; first nation bands; foundations; political parties; and MP, senator, and MLA offices.

Bill C-4 also sets out to repeal Bill C-525, which was passed by our Conservative government. Bill C-525 required the holding of a secret ballot for the creation and abolition of trade unions. According to four surveys by Labour Watch, support for secret ballots ranged from 86% to 92% among currently unionized Canadians.

The proposed abolishment of a secret ballot is an attack on the democratic process. All members of Parliament are elected by secret ballot, so why take this away from unionized workers? How can the Prime Minister say this is undemocratic when he and his entire caucus were elected by secret ballot?

The sad reality for many union members is that professional union organizers exert unacceptable pressure on employees, give false information, and will even resort to fraudulently signing cards on behalf of employees in order to get signed cards. Only secret ballot votes can counter such tactics. How can the Liberal government argue that this is what the majority of union workers want?

John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, told the Senate that “A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles.”

What is the problem? What is the issue? The Liberals want to be legitimized, so why are they taking this away? Without any credible rationale, or really any legitimate discussion with union members, the Liberal government is gutting two significant pieces of legislation that were a victory for union members.

Perhaps the motive for Bill C-4 is quite simple. This is an opportunity to repay the union leadership that helped get the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, an NDP MLA in Manitoba, elected.

Bill C-4 goes against the principles of transparency and accountability. It goes against the fundamental principle of democracy: the secret ballot. It goes against the wishes of hard-working union members themselves. This is why I will be joining my Conservative colleagues in voting against Bill C-4.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 would repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. It would turn around and ultimately strengthen the relationship with our labour unions across our great country.

As for the words “transparency and accountability”, we have heard for 10 or 12 years all about transparency and accountability and how the government was going to be so transparent and accountable. At the end of the day, it was a major disappointment because the government of the day, the Conservative government, was the complete opposite of transparent and accountable. As a Canadian, I found it a huge disappointment. There was a lot of talk, but what did it deliver? It was the exact opposite.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my riding of Sarnia—Lambton has a very large construction union workforce. It is one of the best in North America, certainly top notch in safety, quality, and productivity. During the campaign, I spoke to many of the members, the union workers as well as the leadership, and I did not have the same experience as the member across the aisle. They understood the importance of the transparency and accountability that were coming from Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Their concerns were more about minor modifications that they wanted to see in terms of the onerous paperwork they were complaining about for items over $5,000 and also the political participation documentation. On Bill C-525, their only objection was that they wanted to make sure that, when people showed up to vote, only the people who showed up to vote had their votes counted as a percentage.

Therefore, in terms of the worker support, they understood that there was something good in these bills to protect their rights in transparency and accountability. The government is eliminating it without providing any other mechanism to address those concerns. My question for the member is this. What mechanisms is she going to put in place to ensure transparency and accountability?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by recognizing the great work that my colleague on the other side of the House did with those particular bills to which he referred. Those bills were supported by almost everybody in the House.

However, there is a big difference between introducing the kinds of private members' bills that he did versus something that would affect labour movement throughout our country. Private members' bills, for those who are new here, are wonderful tools members' can use to advance issues they care about. However, changing the rules of labour legislation across the country is not the kind of thing that would get done through private members' bills.

I happen to have Local 183 in my riding, a major labour union. I talk to many of the rank and file folks about these issues, not just the leadership at the top. They understand what Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 do, and they are totally opposed to them. They want to make sure that they have the right and opportunity to continue to enjoy pensions, the great health care benefits they have, and the wonderful things that their families get to enjoy as a result of their participation in an active, strong union.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased on this snowy Tuesday morning to have an opportunity to voice my concerns about some of the legislation passed by the previous government. It is a part of the things that we are going to have to fix.

Bill C-4 is sound legislation that has been written in collaboration. I emphasize that word because it is important when we are producing legislation that it be done in collaboration with the people who are going to be affected. That was not done in the previous government. It was done through a private member's bill, not through the government introducing a piece of legislation the proper way. It was done through the back door, and I am sure we will see that attempted again. However, this time the Conservatives are on that side and we are the government.

Labour stakeholders are important people for us to be talking to when we are putting legislation together, and we have the intention of reversing several destructive policies from the previous Conservative regime. Specifically, Bill C-4 will repeal Bill C-377, Conservative legislation that promised to upset existing labour relations and did just that. It ignored the fact that union financial disclosure, which they continually talk about, is already addressed in the Canadian Labour Code and many provincial labour statutes. It failed to recognize that Bill C-377 is discriminatory against unions and ignores other types of organizations. It is one of those pick and choose options, which was very typical of the previous government. Why were professional associations not part of that? They also received favourable treatment under taxation law, but no one said anything about the professional associations and promised to invade the privacy of labour organizations and their members.

Obviously, the underlying intention of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, the other legislation being repealed by Bill C-4, was to attack organized labour. I am pleased to say, thank goodness that assault is over, which brings me to the second point.

Bill C-4 marks the end of the federal government's intentional confrontation with labour. Most who follow these matters will readily admit that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, both brought in by the previous Conservative government, were part of a hostile attitude toward labour and labour supporters. Bill C-4 will help to set that relationship back on a positive path, something that would improve working conditions, advance productivity, help create jobs, and continue to build this great country of ours.

Of course, creating jobs, promoting innovation, and improving productivity were key planks in our Liberal platform. Moreover, our government recognizes the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and in helping the middle class grow and prosper. I am pleased to add my support to this approach.

We on this side of the House are committed to fair and balanced federal labour policy, and one of those steps is what we are doing today by repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-377 had nothing to do with efficiency. There was a lot of talk about that, but it had nothing to do with efficiency. It actually created new and unnecessary red tape for unions. This happened because the government imposed new demands on workers, even though the Canada Labour Code and many provincial labour statutes already ensure financial accountability from unions. This costly by-product of a vindictive and anti-labour government put unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining, hindering productivity at the front end of the process.

Then, just to make things worse, Bill C-525 made it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. This negativity, which is a continued rant on unions, took a toll on labour and the environment in which they have to function. Bill C-4 is part of our government's plan to ensure that Canada's labour laws best serve employees, and, very importantly, employers, which by extension also serves Canadians. Put another way, when labour is successful, our economy can prosper in ways that ensures prosperity is felt by each and every Canadian, not just a select few at the top of the corporate ladder.

It is also worth noting that Bill C-4 does more than stop the federal government's attack on labour; it also responds to very serious concerns expressed by experts all across Canada. For example, the Alberta union of public employees launched a constitutional challenge against Bill C-377. While the court proceedings have been temporarily suspended, given this government's stated intervention to repeal the bill, the underlying concerns remain valid. Privacy concerns were also raised by the Canadian Bar Association and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The CBA suggested that the bill may be subject to legal challenges on those very grounds.

Despite all of this, the previous government plunged forward with its ideologically driven legislative agenda, which showed indifference to the Canadians who were suffering and the difficulties it was creating in our economy and our country. This is just a small snapshot of the trouble prompted by the passage of Bill C-377.

Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island are all on the record as opposing Bill C-377. Those seven provinces, bastions of manufacturing, resource extraction, hospitality and tourism, and countless other sectors that are vital to GDP maintenance and growth, all called on the previous federal government to stop the assault against labour.

Let us stop to think about the fact that seven of our ten provinces were actively opposing this and the Conservative government did not care. It did not matter to the Conservatives. They had their own ideology, and that is what they were working with. These seven premiers specifically raised concerns that Bill C-377 encroached upon their jurisdiction over labour issues. They also criticized the bill for potentially destabilizing their labour relations environment, particularly with respect to collective bargaining processes. These premiers know that kicking labour does nothing to advance job creation or industrial growth or relationships.

Three of the provinces, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, also criticized Bill C-377 for eroding the privacy rights of union members and expressed concerns that it would create an unnecessary burden on labour organizations. These premiers understand the added dangers of more red tape.

However, Bill C-377 was not the only problem with the labour agenda of the Conservatives. Sadly, for a government that pretended to have a strong fiscal management style, much was lacking in its approach. It could be argued that multiple recessions, waning consumer confidence, and shaky job numbers all bore witness to clear Conservative fiscal failures.

Bill C-525 was equally problematic for many stakeholders. A number of labour organizations, such as the CLC, Unifor, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, all expressed opposition to Bill C-525, arguing that the card check certification model is quicker, more efficient, and more likely to be free of employer interference.

However, good governance was not the goal of Bill C-377 or Bill C-525, which is why Liberals in the Senate and the House opposed the legislation. Of course, debate is healthy and something we want to see happen, especially when it comes to any measure that impacts such a large section of society. Unfortunately, the process used to pass Bill C-525 did not allow debate to surface. That is because the previous Conservative government introduced their agenda in Bill C-525 via a private member's bill rather than government legislation. If the government is serious about doing something, it introduces its own legislation; it does not do it through a back door via a private member's bill. This may seem like a nuance, but the tactic is not without compromise and consequences. Government legislation is introduced after public consultation and outreach. A private member's bill comes with no such effort, and it shows in the diminished quality of the statute.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are faulty and they are hurting the economy. Bill C-4 would repeal them, because we need to make sure that labour has the tools it needs as well for success.

All labour organizations in Canada, including even the smallest locals and national unions, labour councils, federations of labour and other umbrella organizations, as well as intermediate organizations, were left out of the process by the previous government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that more than 18,000 labour entities would be affected by the implementation of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, yet the government of the day locked them all out of the process. That is wrong. Bill C-4 would make things right again.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He quoted some polls with respect to the support for Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 at the time. I want to comment on the behaviour of the previous government.

In the budget, $900 million was announced before there were even negotiations. Was that in the spirit of the unions or in the spirit of management imposing a solution? I want him to comment on his past government's behaviour on its ability to negotiate with the union leadership.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to debate on Bill C-4.

A lot of the things that have been discussed and debated today are of great concern to me, and I think many Canadians. We talked about things like a secret ballot being unnecessary red tape and going against the foundation of our democracy. I find it unbelievable that many of our Liberal and NDP colleagues have made such comments today. It is the secret ballot, the way we elect almost every political official in our country, federal, provincial, and municipal, and they find it to be unnecessary red tape.

I would like to ask them how they think they came into this House today. Would they prefer that there not be a secret ballot, or no ballot whatsoever? I question their frame of mind when they are talking about a secret ballot being undemocratic.

It is also quite ironic that the first piece of legislation from the new government, a government that campaigned quite passionately about openness, transparency and accountability, is a bill that will absolutely gut transparency and accountability in legislation that we put forward for unions. I find that to be incredibly ironic, and I would say another broken promise by the new Liberal government.

Equally as frustrating for me as a member of Parliament from Alberta is that I have to question the motives of the government and why they would be bringing this piece of legislation forward right now. I am getting calls every day, from welders, waitresses, pipefitters, rig hands. They ask me when the government will come up with some kind of strategy that will help them get back to work. When will the government announce some sort of plan that will help their families as they try to make ends meet? They could potentially lose their jobs, or they have already lost their jobs. Where is the priority of the government when thousands of Albertans have been laid off?

The labour study was released today, and 22,000 full-time jobs were lost in Alberta in January alone. Alberta's unemployment rate went to 7.4%, which is the first time since 1988 that it has been higher than the Canadian average. We have heard predictions that Alberta's unemployment rate will exceed 8% by the end of 2016, the highest it has been since the Liberal Party put through the national energy program.

With thousands of workers, not only from Alberta, but Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, losing their jobs due to the downturn in the energy sector, the priority of the government is to reward the union bosses who helped get it elected instead of talking to Canadian families who have lost their jobs. I have to tell these families that in my discussions and debates in the House of Commons that Alberta is obviously not a priority. Canada's economy is certainly not a priority. The families who have lost their jobs are not a priority. However, what is a priority is rewarding those big union bosses who helped get the Liberals elected. I find that to be extremely frustrating.

The Liberal plan to repeal this legislation, a piece of legislation that was intended to ensure transparency and accountability for union leaders, I find very irresponsible. Despite what the minister would have us believe, repealing this piece of legislation and bringing forward Bill C-4 is an attack on Canadian workers.

The Minister of Employment said she believes that repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will restore balance to unions. The only balance that Bill C-4 will bring is tipping the balance away from union workers back to the union leadership.

I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of union members are in favour of this type of legislation, the type of legislation that we put forward in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In a Leger poll, 86% of union members supported this kind of legislation. In a similar poll, 84% of all Canadians supported this type of legislation that brings accountability and transparency to unions. They want to be able to vote via a secret ballot on union leadership or union business, and they want to know how their union dues are being spent. I do not think that is too much to ask.

Canadians support transparency and accountability. Union members support transparency and accountability, and yet the Liberal government does not. This is a disturbing trend. It seems to be a sort of theme for the new Liberal government.

One of the first things the Minister of Indigenous Affairs did when she got her cabinet post was announce that she will ignore the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, where residents in first nations communities have the opportunity to see the finances of their leadership made public.

The first piece of legislation by the new employment minister is a bill that would gut transparency and accountability by unions. Do members see a recurring theme here? I do.

I heard today from a Liberal member, in her speech, that a secret ballot is in some way additional red tape that goes against the very foundation of our democracy. I just cannot believe that asking union members to vote in a secret ballot somehow puts them out, that we are asking them to do too much. Those members really need to rethink the stance they are taking. Without any credible rationale, or really any legitimate discussion with union members, the Liberal government is gutting two significant pieces of legislation that were a victory for union members.

The motive for Bill C-4 is really quiet simple. This is an opportunity to repay union leadership that helped get the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, an NDP MLA in Manitoba, elected.

Last week, we heard that the Liberal Party was found guilty of accepting illegal union donations during a campaign event. The Prime Minister's own campaign team specifically asked the union to have members be props at a campaign event. His campaign team knew that they would be paid $100 each.

That was not the only campaign event he had. He had another campaign event with the Carpenters' District Council in Vaughan and another with the International Union of Operating Engineers in Oakville. This has been a cozy relationship with the unions, and I would be curious to know if there were illegal donations made at those two campaign events as well.

Since the election, the Prime Minister has met with the Teamsters three times, the engineers' union three times, and even the American Federation of Labour, the largest union in the United States. He has made meeting with the unions a top priority. He has met with close to a dozen of them. Yet during that time, we have lost thousands of jobs in the energy sector, with more to come. How many times has he met with people in the oil and gas sector? How many times has he met with stakeholders in the oil and gas industry? He has met with them once, and it was yesterday in Calgary. It shows us where the priorities of the Liberal government seem to lie right now.

The Liberal Party campaigned on accountability and transparency. It is obvious that it has no intentions of keeping that campaign promise. Canadians deserve better.

At the federal level, the previous Conservative government introduced extensive reforms to ensure that Canadians have trust in their political institutions. The first piece of legislation we brought in as a Conservative government was the Federal Accountability Act, something that we are very proud of on this side of the House. It brought accountability and transparency to Canadians. It did not gut it.

The Federal Accountability Act reformed the financing of political parties. It reduced opportunities to influence politicians with contributions by banning contributions from unions and corporations, and it levelled the playing field among individual contributors.

We also introduced Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which made unions more transparent and accountable to both unions and Canadians. The specific intent of these bills was to preserve the democratic rights of Canadian workers and increase public confidence that unions spend their money wisely and effectively. With the passage of this legislation, the public was empowered to gauge the effectiveness, financial integrity, and health of their labour unions.

Some opponents today described Bill C-377 as anti-union. They said that union money should not be scrutinized by Canadians, let alone by their own union members. This is simply not true. These unions are subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, and they are subsidized by a very significant amount. The federal government offers generous tax benefits to workers' organizations and a tax exemption on profits earned on investments, income from employers, and the profits generated by training centres. Despite receiving these substantial tax benefits, these organizations in the past were not required to disclose publicly how they used these tax advantages.

To put this in the same context, for the federal government, including me, and I am sure all of my colleagues in this room, every dime we spend is open to the public. It is on my website. People can check it out right now. Provinces, municipalities, and charities are asked to make these types of financial records public. The only ones who are not are unions.

It is frustrating that unions that should be accountable to their members and that receive generous tax breaks with taxpayer dollars do not feel that they should have the same obligation to disclose their finances to the public.

In most cases the money is deducted from the payroll whether the employee wishes to be part of that union or not. The money is then subject to tax exemptions that keep $500 million out of the Canadian treasury each year.

I think, and it is obvious from the polls we have done, that most Canadians believe these dollars and what is being done with them should be made public. Bill C-377 is about that disclosure, and it was a positive step forward for unions and Canadian workers. It ensured that union members and Canadians could have access to the knowledge on how union money was being spent, how their membership dues were being spent, as well as the investment in taxes and dollars that resulted from these dues.

Bill C-377 simply imposed transparency and accountability on unions, nothing more. It required labour organizations to file public information a return with the Canadian Revenue Agency on an annual basis. We heard that today. They said that they were doing that in seven provinces. All of a sudden they are saying that now that we are asking them to do it across the country, it is some sort of unbearable burden. If they are already doing it in many cases, it is not that hard to make a second copy and give it to the CRA.

The disclosure requirements would include financial statements, including the amount paid for political and lobbying activities, and the salaries paid to executive and staff. Nothing more.

In addition, the bill requires the CRA to display this information on a website for the public to see. Far from targeting unions, Bill C-377 does nothing more than impose the same obligations that registered charities across Canada now face. I am a Rotarian and I have been one for many years. We do our financial audits. We do our year-end audits and ensure it is available for the public to see. We certainly do not consider that to be some incredible burden.

If charities across Canada can somehow manage to do this, unions that receive a half a billion dollars a year through taxpayer subsidies can manage to do this as well. Their members want them to do these things.

If the Minister of Employment believes that transparency and accountability is so devastating to Canadian unions, why do so many other countries have similar legislation, and their unions have thrived? The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, even France, socialist France, asked their unions to have similar legislation and to put their financial documents forward to the public. Even some Canadian labour organizations already do this. If their head office is in the United States, they have to make their financials public as well.

Some people have said that this creates an unfair burden on unions. This type of legislation has been in the United States for decades and has not impacted their collective bargaining in any way. The fact is that this bill does not regulate the activities of trade unions, how they participate in collective bargaining or in any way how they spend their funds.

The bill does not violate their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has stood up to constitutional challenge. For example, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache released his opinion on Bill C-377, and said that it was constitutional and would be upheld in the court he sat on. This shows, a former Supreme Court justice has said that these pieces of legislation that we put forward are not unconstitutional.

The bills simply provide greater transparency and accountability, ironically, two things the Liberal government campaigned on but do not seem too eager to follow up on.

As I touched on earlier, a survey conducted by the Leger firm in 2013 showed that of the 1,400 Canadians it polled, 83% said they wanted to see this type of legislation to be adopted by unions, and 84% of current union members also agreed. A Nanos poll done in 2011 showed similar results. Therefore, this has not changed. For some reason, the Liberal Party wants us to think that between 2013 and 2016 there has been an incredible earthquake of change in position of union members.

When the Minister of Employment brought forward C-4, did she actually consult with union members before she brought this forward? If 84% of union members in 2013 supported the type of legislation that we put forward with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, what has changed in three years? What has changed in three years that now the Liberal government believes the union membership has been crying for it to repeal this type of legislation.

I am certain there has been an outcry, but my bet is it is from the union leadership, not the union members who the Liberals failed to consult before bringing this forward.

Earlier this week I asked the Minister of Employment if she had actually consulted with union members before bringing this type of legislation forward. Her answer was a no answer. She could not answer. I think the fact is that the Liberals did not. What she said was that she had spoken to 22,000 residents in her constituency during the election campaign.

I would like to ask her this. Did she say to them that her bill would be in favour of less democracy? Did she ask them if they were okay with the government's stomping on the very foundation of our democracy and getting rid of secret ballots? Does she think her Manitoba riding spoke for the rest of Canada? I would be interested in seeing what her answer is on something like that.

It is in the public interest that the financial information of workers' organizations be disclosed because of the tax breaks they receive. It is a benefit of the union workers because they exercise their democratic right through a secret ballot. It is also the benefit of a government to consult with Canadians, as we did when we drafted this type of legislation. For example, Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said he supported Bill C-377. He said that almost all unionized workplaces are forced to pay union dues. Therefore, unions should be required to publicly disclose how they use those funds. He also stated that public financial disclosure for unions would enhance transparency and accountability with regard to trade union activities. He was not the only one. We had lawyers, union members, and professors all come and speak to the committee and Senate committee in support of this legislation.

Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers, to ensure that they have a fair and productive workplace and can work in an environment where they feel they can speak with their conscience. This is about balance and it creates a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice so they feel it is better suited to their needs. It is a Liberal government that is attempting to repeal legislation that created accountability, transparency, and fairness for workers. The Liberals plan to go back to a system that was broken and balanced unfairly. This is not what Canadians want.

The Liberal Minister of Employment said that the government was repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 in favour of creating a balanced network. This is exactly what our previous legislation did. The main principle of that legislation was that all federally regulated workers should have the democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot, especially when they are voting to certify or decertify their union. The legislation recognized the right to peaceful association is one that extends to all workers in Canada, should they wish to have a union represent them or not. The choice is theirs to make, and it should be theirs to make by way of a secret ballot. The choice should not belong to their union leadership. The system was open to abuse, where co-workers could be coerced or intimidated into voting for a union. It is not unreasonable, nor should it be unreasonable, to ask to have a secret ballot. It is consistent with every democratic system we have in this country. It is a basic right afforded to all voters, and should be reasonably extended to workers who are voicing their opinion on whether they want to be in a union. The only way to achieve this is through a secret ballot.

It seems that the Liberals' goal and mandate here is to change every voting system that we have across this country. It is absolutely clear that the Liberal government has no respect for Canadians' right to vote. They want to get rid of the secret ballot here in the House. They want unions to go back to the card check system. They also do not believe that Canadians have the right to vote in a referendum when we are talking about possibly changing the very system of how we select our government. Piece by piece, the current Liberal government is intent on dismantling our democracy.

During the spring of last year, I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of a union at a gas plant in southern Alberta. It had about 80 members. I wanted to ask them how they felt about the legislation we had put forward. They were honest. They said they were being pressured by their union leadership in eastern Canada to vote against the Conservatives because of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I asked them whom they supported and how they were going to vote. They said they were voting Conservative and supported the bills and information contained therein, that they wanted to see the financial records of their union leadership and to have the freedom of conscience to be able to vote in a secret ballot.

Right now, as we put forward Bill C-4, I want the Minister of Employment to come forward and be honest with Canadians. The reason she is putting forward Bill C-4 is that it is a way to repay the union leadership who helped get her elected. It is not a bill that is in the best interests of Canadians.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for a very passionate, balanced speech. It is clear to me that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were clear attacks on the labour movement. I am proud to stand with the hon. member to support Bill C-4, but I come back to the point that has been made many times this morning and the last time we debated this bill, that the previous bills were a solution to a problem that did not exist.

Could the member speak to the origins of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the process used by the previous government to bring in Bill C-525 was undemocratic. The Conservatives did not go out into the community, a community like York Centre, to consult with organizations and employers to determine what the implications of such an act would be. The bill was rammed through in a process not supported by either side, management or labour. It unbalanced the delicate scales in the labour relations process. That is why the government is committed to standing up for the rights of workers and ensuring that Bill C-4 repeals those two bills.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill on the table today, Bill C-4, deals in particular with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and speaks to a fair and balanced relationship between both sides, which is crucial when it comes to collective bargaining. That is the issue on the floor of the House today, that is the commitment that our government has made, and that is the commitment that we will be upholding when we vote on this bill next week.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to ask for the support of the House for Bill C-4, which would repeal the legislative amendments enacted by Bills C-377 and C-525 of the previous Parliament.

I am proud to call York Centre home to a large number of businesses and manufacturers. I have met people and heard stories from businesses that started in their garages and have grown into international brands. These range from storefronts to factories, many of which are local success stories that now have national, and even international, reach.

Not so coincidentally, York Centre is also home to a large number of unions and unionized workers. These are employees across a broad spectrum, from construction and the skilled trades, to factory workers, administrative employees, teachers, and public servants. It is no coincidence that my riding is home to so many thriving businesses and labour organizations. Both go together and have to worth together for our economy to thrive.

As we have stated before, our government believes that fair and balanced labour relations are absolutely essential for the prosperity of Canadian workers and our country's economic growth. Both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly, in safe and healthy work environments.

It is our labour laws that help ensure there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. However, in the previous Parliament, a number of pieces of legislation were passed that changed our labour relations system. Bills C-377 and C-525, private members' bills supported by the previous government, upset the delicate balance between unions and employers.

Under Bill C-377, labour organizations and labour trusts are required to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with details of their assets, liabilities, income and expenditures, as well as salaries paid to their officers, directors, and other specified employees. They are also required to provide information on the time spent by officers on political lobbying and non-labour relations activities. This information is then to be made publicly available on the CRA's website.

This creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Under the Canada Labour Code, unions in federally regulated workplaces, as well as employers' organizations, are already required to provide their financial statements to their own members, free and on demand. It is worth noting that eight provinces have similar financial disclosure requirements.

Why should unions be subject to these onerous and redundant reporting requirements, requirements that do not apply to other organizations that also benefit from similar status under the Income Tax Act, such as professional organizations?

Then there is the issue of this information being publicly available. Publishing this information on the CRA's website means that employers will have access to key union information, including how much they have set aside in a strike fund. It is not difficult to see how this puts the unions at a serious disadvantage during the collective bargaining process.

Essentially, Bill C-377 imbalances the system. This brings me to Bill C-525, which also tilts the scales in favour of employers.

Prior to Bill C-525, federally regulated private sector workers who wanted to organize could do so in a relatively simple and straightforward manner. If a majority of employees signed a union card, they could go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, show it the signed union cards, and the CIRB could certify them as the bargaining agent for those workers. If less than a majority of employees signed union cards, but at least 35% did, a certification vote could be held. The card-check system worked well for many years, so why was it replaced by a system that many stakeholders, such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, feel is less efficient and more vulnerable to employer interference?

Under Bill C-525, unions are required to show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote, making it more difficult to get the right to vote. In addition, even when the majority of workers have clearly demonstrated their support by signing union membership cards, a secret ballot vote must be held before they can be certified as a bargaining agent.

The card check system, which is based on obtaining majority support, is no less democratic than a mandatory vote system. It has also proven to be an efficient and effective way to gauge employee wishes. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees, this two-stage process essentially forces those in favour of a union to vote twice. By slowing the process, the employer has the opportunity to intimidate, harass, and unethically induce employees to vote no. Not all employers would attempt to prevent unions from organizing. However, there are examples of those who have.

The bottom line is that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 put unions at a disadvantage and make it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize in the first place.

Why would we want to make life more difficult for unions and the workers they represent? We recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadians. As Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff stated, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were “nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers”.

The federal labour relations system used to be respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of genuine and proven consultative and consensual processes that had been followed for decades with respect to amending the Labour Code. As I mentioned earlier, the prosperity of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy relies on those same fair and balanced labour relations. Repealing the legislative amendments made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will help restore that balance.

I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues in the House will support Bill C-4 so we can achieve this.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. I, like her, am proud to rise and support Bill C-4. In my estimation, the previous bills, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, were clearly attacks on the labour movement. I have heard a lot of speeches here this morning and this afternoon, and it is clear that the opposition members are coming from a place of extremism. Whether attacking, as in this case, the labour movement or, in other instances the indigenous organizations, non-profits, or charities, it is clearly a place that does not appreciate the balance of government.

I wonder if the hon. member could offer her comments on my impressions.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 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. This bill represents an important effort to reverse the anti-union and anti-worker legislation that was ushered through Parliament by the previous Conservative government.

The NDP worked tirelessly to oppose Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 at every step of the way, so it should come as no surprise that our party is in full support of repealing these bills.

While I welcome the changes tabled by the government as a good first step, there is so much more to do for workers' rights and conditions. New Democrats are calling on the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage, to adopt anti-scab legislation, and to implement proactive pay equity legislation, as per the NDP motion passed in this place just a few days ago. The NDP is also calling on the government to restore good-faith bargaining with our public service workers by repealing Division 20 of Bill C-59, related to sick days.

After a decade of Conservative darkness, I am encouraged to see the Liberal government taking the first steps to restore some of the rights of working people that were under attack under the previous government.

As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am determined to be a strong voice for working people both in my home riding and across Canada. The struggle of working people in Canada for unionization and their gains have benefited all Canadians. The fight of unions for a fair workplace for all workers in our country began with the fight in 1872 to have a shorter workday, but it has included changes to maternity and parental leave, the right to a safe workplace, and more.

My riding has proud union members working in auto manufacturing, health care, long-term care, education, municipalities, trades, retail, and the public sector. The benefits of being a unionized worker include a legally binding contract that guarantees working conditions, job security, paid holidays, wages, benefits, health and safety, and more.

On average, unionized workers earn $5 more per hour than non-unionized workers. For women, the difference is $6.65 an hour. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week.

Unions also provide great support for communities. In my riding of Essex, unionized workers give generously and selflessly to the United Way and other non-profit organizations, which has made a vast difference in the lives of people in all of our communities, not just in the lives of union members. Gaps that exist due to government cuts and program reductions are picked up by caring union members who continue to dig deep into their pockets, even when they are suffering in their own industries.

I spent much of the last year knocking on doors and talking with people from every community in my riding of Essex. Their stories and struggles were the struggles of all hard-working Canadians: high unemployment through no fault of their own, and in our region, one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada, with many still ineligible for EI.

Workers are struggling to make ends meet. Our communities are filled with the working poor, who are left no choice but to work in minimum-wage jobs and part-time or casual jobs, often piecing together two or three different jobs just to make ends meet. Sadly, this is a growing reality across Canada. Statistics tell us that 60% of all new Canadian jobs are considered precarious, part-time, temporary, contract-based, freelance, and self-employed positions. These workers are taxi drivers, contract teachers, office cleaners, and clerks. They often have no workplace pension, no job benefits, and no job security.

As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to work together and advocate for solutions that will improve the lives of all Canadians. Instead, in the previous Parliament, the Conservatives pushed through legislation, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, designed to weaken unions and make it more difficult for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to join a union.

These two bills moved through Parliament as private member's bills, although it was crystal clear that these were government-led initiatives. Even now, the Conservatives are threatening to use their power in the Senate to block legislation that would restore labour rights. Canadians are fed up with the unelected, unaccountable, under-investigation Senate. There is no place in our democracy for these senators to upend the work done by Canadians' representatives here in this place.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary, discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. Guised as a move to improve transparency, those who actually know how union locals operate also know that Bill C-377 had absolutely nothing to do with transparency. As a union member, I know the direction of the union members' funds and how they are determined, in fact, by the membership. Transparency between union members and their elected governing executives is never an issue. Members are always able to access the financial disclosure of their allocation of dues. Not a penny is spent that is not reported to the membership.

Reporting requirements in Bill C-377 would bog down unions in so much red tape that it would severely interfere with their ability to serve their membership. According to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, this bill went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by violating Canadians' right to the freedom of association and privacy rights of those who work for a union.

Bill C-377 would also cost millions of dollars to implement. The parliamentary budget officer estimated it would cost more than $2.4 million allocated by the Canada Revenue Agency. In fact, it was estimated that it would cost the CRA approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database over the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million in each subsequent year. Repealing the contents of Bill C-377 would save millions of dollars for both the government and the unions, and, as I previously mentioned, would continue the critical support that unionized workers provide for their communities where government gaps exist.

Bill C-4, the government bill before us today, also seeks to repeal Bill C-525, another bill introduced by a Conservative backbencher and ushered through by a Conservative government intent on attacking the labour movement. Bill C-525 fundamentally changed the process for certifying or decertifying a union under federal jurisdiction, essentially making it harder to certify a union and easier to decertify. It should come as no surprise that workers would want to unionize. As I outlined earlier, unionized jobs tend to have higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions than non-unionized jobs. Bill C-525 would impact all federally regulated workers seeking to certify or decertify as a union. Workers under this jurisdiction include the energy sector, airline sector, telecommunications, rail, and postal workers.

For these federally regulated workers, to certify as a unionized workforce it was previously the case that a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of employees sign a card indicating they wish to be a member of a union. It is called the “card check system”. If between 35% and 50% of employees sign a card, a vote is triggered to ask employees if they wish to be unionized. Bill C-525 changed all this by outlawing the card check model and replacing it with a two-step process. First, the card-signing process where the percentage of signed cards required to trigger a vote increased from 35% to 40%. The second step included a government supervised vote. These changes were fundamentally unfair and put workers wanting to unionize at a serious disadvantage.

Bills C-377 and C-525 were not in the best interests of workers. Instead, they were designed to further attack and erode the labour movement in Canada. New Democrats will always stand for the interests of working Canadians. I am proud of how our party provided strong and effective leadership in opposing these bills in the House, at committee, and in the media. Today's legislation to repeal Bills C-377 and C-525 is a step in the right direction. I am also proud of our successful NDP motion this week calling for immediate action on pay equity. Let us also move forward on restoring and enhancing collective bargaining rights as well as fairer working conditions for all Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and welcome her to the House. I wish her the very best as she starts her new career.

The member had some very good points in her speech. However, so that she is aware as we debate, the rational the Conservative government used at the time to put forward these two pieces of legislation, the reason the member for Red Deer—Lacombe cited for putting forward Bill C-525, was that it was to address the mountain of grievances against big union bosses and their strong-arm tactics to organize labour sites.

When the president of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee, I asked specifically about this mountain of grievances. In over 10 years, she had dealt with 4,000 grievances. The number of grievances against the big union bosses was two in 10 years. Would the member see that as a mountain of grievances? Does she believe that would be justification enough to go forward with this punitive anti-union legislation?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Essex.

I am pleased to rise in the House to debate 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. First of all, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting this bill. The NDP strongly opposed the previous Conservative government's attempt to limit the rights of unions and change the rules governing labour relations.

This bill reflects one of the promises made by the NDP during the election campaign. Although I support this bill, I must mention how much work still needs to be done with regard to workers' rights and their working conditions.

The bill restores and respects workers' rights. Like thousands of other people in my riding of Jonquière, I am very proud to have been a part of the labour movement. I was the president of my local chapter for eight years, and I managed it well.

Since we started debating Bill C-4, I cannot help but feel a twinge of sadness about many of the comments I have heard here in the House. For eight years, I was directly accountable to my members at meetings and even at my workplace. I had to deal with some very sensitive issues with my members and defend both long-time and new employees.

At union meetings we had a duty to present our financial statements to members. The same goes for all locals, in all unions. The members themselves must decide whether they agree with the spending their union is doing within their own organization. We must be transparent and accountable to our members. That is enshrined in all of our laws, and all unions must comply.

Over those eight years, I did so and we even implemented an audit system, which also exists in all unions. Our union has an officer to look over all the books and statements. I must say that when there is an anomaly, for example, if an invoice is missing or if an expenditure was left out or made by mistake, we are set straight and we are always accountable to this movement and our members.

Unions and their members do not need a government telling them what to do because they already have their regulations. They already have their own rules, rules that the members voted on either in meetings or in committees that are themselves elected by the members. Transparency is already part of the process, and leaders are accountable to union members every step of the way.

If a worker finds fault with the union's internal processes or the representatives, there is a great organization to handle that: the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. The board is there for those people. It is impartial, and it exists to protect workers who feel their rights have been violated. There is even a complaints process. We do not need laws like the ones the Conservatives brought in to dictate how unions should be organized.

The union movement is very happy about Bill C-4, which would repeal the previous government's unfair bills C-377 and C-525. The New Democrats opposed those bills at every stage in the process because they were useless and irresponsible legislative measures that made a mockery of the very ideas of equality and fairness in negotiations between the parties and that undermined people's basic right to free collective bargaining.

It was a partisan assault on the men and women who go to work every day to provide for their families. Those same people voted to elect representatives to the House of Commons to defend their interests.

I was very disappointed that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent reiterated his support for his party's bills, when he was not even a member for the party at that time.

Blaming the unions for his party's defeat is a little like blaming the groundhog for a longer winter. Ultimately, the workers spoke, and the Conservatives did not have their support, essentially because the Conservatives trampled all over workers' rights.

I would like to provide some direction for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, since he seems to have lost his way somewhere between Quebec City and Ottawa.

The World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and a quicker response to economic downturns. I think our economy could use a good boost right about now.

The Conservatives put all their eggs in one basket and we are seeing the consequences of that today. Unfortunately, people often forget what the union movement has done for workers: minimum wage, paid overtime, occupational safety standards, parental and maternity leave, paid vacation, and protection from discrimination and sexual harassment.

Just yesterday, we voted for a motion on pay equity moved by the NDP. I thank all the parties who supported the motion. I am still scratching my head about the fact that the Conservatives refused to support our motion, and especially that their leader refused to support our motion, considering that until recently she was the minister of status of women.

Bill C-4 is an excellent first step. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to fix past mistakes, such as the attack on sick leave introduced in the omnibus Bill C-59.

We also have to take a look at what we can improve, beyond the repairs that need to be made because of the Conservatives' bad decisions. It is high time that we modernized some of the outdated provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

It has been almost 60 years since the Canada Labour Code was overhauled. I join with my colleague from Saskatoon West in highlighting the importance of following up on the recommendations of the report released after the 2006 review of the Canada Labour Code.

That follow-up is already overdue. A good number of those recommendations and the vital updates would benefit many workers. For example, take the issues of workplace safety and preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. In Quebec, under the CSST regulations, once women are 26 weeks pregnant they are entitled to preventive withdrawal for their protection and that of their foetus. There is no such provision in the Canada Labour Code. Thus, we still have far to go. We must do more to improve working conditions for our women, our future mothers, and for all workers. Every worker deserves to be protected.

Some workers have a very hard time putting food on the table every day. Therefore, we urge the government to restore the federal minimum wage, to pass anti-scab legislation and to fight for greater pay equity.

I am pleased to have had this time and the opportunity to debate this bill, because the rights of workers across Canada have been violated by the Conservatives' actions.

Unions have many procedures, bylaws and rules. Consequently, this whole movement is already well established.

I see that my time is up, but I could talk a long time about this subject.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, my parents were union members. My dad was a local union president. From an early age, I knew that unions played an important role in growing strong middle-class jobs like my parents', promoting strong jobs and middle-class work that the people of St. Catharines and all of Niagara rely on.

With regard to Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, the sole purpose seems to be ideologically punitive. There were no demands from unions or industry for these bills.

Could the hon. members please advise how the government intends to restore a positive relationship with unions with the current bill before the House?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech honouring members in his community who are members of unions.

The NDP, of course, is pleased that the federal government has tabled legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I would also like to say that we noticed Bill C-377 would have cost a tremendous amount to taxpayers to implement, as well as to keep the database going.

In my community, many union members put money into their communities through United Way programs, non-profit organizations. Bill C-377 would have tied up the funds that union members happily put into their communities to keep them thriving when government programs are lacking.

Could the member across please speak to the ways that the union members in his community contribute as well?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the government is repealing two laws that have changed the way unions operate.

Bill C-377 has created unnecessary red tape and has put organized labour at a disadvantage in the collective bargaining process.

Bill C-525 makes it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified.

The measures the government is taking in Bill C-4, are part of a plan designed to ensure that Canada's labour laws best serve employees and employers.

This new bill is part of the government's plan to strengthen the middle class in our great country and to fully recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers.

This government started with a tax break for hard-working Canadians. In the riding I represent, that is a tax break for hard-working nurses, teachers, soldiers, and many other public servants.

We will follow that tax break with the new Canada child benefit, a monthly tax-free, income-tested benefit that would lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, a benefit that will help nine out of ten Canadian families.

We will also support our veterans by restoring the option of the lifelong pension and by caring for their physical and mental health, and that of their families. It is the sacred obligation of the government to unconditionally support those who have unconditionally served for our safety and freedom.

The government will rebuild its relationship with indigenous Canadians on a nation-to-nation basis, a relationship based upon mutual respect, recognition of rights, and understanding of traditional knowledge.

This bill is also about respect and fairness, national economic prosperity, and supporting the middle class, which is made up of those dedicated workers who contribute to the growth of our communities and our economy.

It is clear that the previous government did not believe in fairness or the importance of unions and the role they play. Its actions were motivated by a desire to undermine the union movement.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were counterproductive to a positive working relationship between employees and employers. Furthermore, it was not a widespread request of the business community. It was unnecessary and caused difficulties for unions.

The two anti-labour bills, which this bill seeks to reverse and reset, were direct attacks on unions by the previous Conservative government. They undermined the right for workers in federally regulated sectors to form a union, and imposed unnecessary and onerous reporting burdens on all unions.

The current government is taking a different route, which consists in listening to the union groups, communities, and legal experts who sounded the alarm about these bills that likely violate charter rights. A number of constitutional experts felt that Bill C-377 was likely unconstitutional.

Privacy experts said that the bill would compromise the private information of millions of Canadians. The bill also discriminates against unions. It does not take into account other types of organizations, such as professional associations. What is more, seven provinces are against the bill because they feel it encroaches on their jurisdiction.

As my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has so eloquently stated, Bill C-525 was simply a solution looking for a problem.

Simply put, in over 10 years and after thousands of rulings by the Industrial Relations Board, there were merely two judgments against unions for questionable practices during union organizing.

That is why the government has taken significant steps to rebuild labour relations after a decade of acrimony between unions and the Conservatives. It is why the government has introduced legislation to repeal these two anti-labour bills.

I have the honour every day of representing the riding of Fredericton, which is home to many dedicated workers who have been unfavourably and unfairly affected by Bills C-377 and C-525, which are mean-spirited.

Educated, professional, proud public servants, many of whom are taking care of our aging population, live in the riding.

We are home to university scientists and researchers, themselves fostering creative approaches and solutions to the existential challenges we face as a society, as well as making new discoveries to the way we view the world and how we provide economic opportunity, social well-being, and environmental sustainability to our community.

We are also home to almost 1,000 civilian employees at Base Gagetown, employees who, amidst all the coming and going of our men and women in uniform, keep the lights on, the roads safe, and the buildings operational at Canada's largest military training base.

The economic and fiscal contribution of these professional public servants is enormous. Base Gagetown alone contributes upward of $600 million annually to the New Brunswick economy.

The base, the largest federal government asset and largest contributor to our socio-economic vibrancy in the riding, would simply not remain operational without the diligence and hard work of civilian employees, the support of their families, and, in fact, the support of the entire town of Oromocto, Canada's model town, which sprung up just over a half century ago to provide service and a home for the base.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were not mere attacks on the civilian workforce at Base Gagetown. They were seen as an attack on the community of Oromocto. As I knocked on doors last winter, spring, summer, and fall, clear across the Oromocto community, I heard time and time again how the community felt largely betrayed by the former government and how it felt it was time for a positive change.

On October 19, the people of Oromocto spoke clearly and they spoke for that real change.

As the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has said many times, we promised to repeal these bills because they are detrimental to labour relations. In Oromocto, labour relations have had a negative impact on the morale of the community.

Unions have a major role to play in protecting workers' rights and growing the middle class. The former government trampled on many basic labour rights that were hard won by the unions. That made it more difficult for workers to enjoy freedom of association, bargain collectively in good faith and work in a safe environment.

The government plans on restoring fair and balanced labour legislation that recognizes the important role unions play in Canada and respects their major contribution to the growth and prosperity of the middle class.

This begins with repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, legislation that diminishes and weakens Canada's labour movement. This side of the floor knows that the bill may face a stiff test in the Senate. It is, however, sad to hear members opposite say that they will direct the Senate to kill the bill and continue to disadvantage the organized labour movement in Canada.

I believe the Senate exists to study and recommend improvements and enhancements to legislation. I hope the upper chamber will serve to do just that and will work collaboratively with all parliamentarians in the House.

Canadians elected a government that would ensure evidence based decision making. On balance, there was very little evidence to support the passing of these two bills. Canadians elected a government that work hard to reinstitute fairness in decision making. Over and above balance, there was nothing fair in these bills.

This government promised to stand up for Canadians, and this is exactly what we have set out to do, and Bill C-4 would do that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In response to the question I just heard, clearly, we do not need to talk specifically about an attack on unions. However, the inference is there. Obviously, it has been implied, not only in this debate but also in the debate that took place in the previous Parliament on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

When you look at the contents of the debates here in the House and the discussions that took place in the relevant committees, it is clear that the legislation was not meant to unshackle the workers, but rather to attack unions' ability to properly represent them.

The provisions in the bills, which later became law, not only undermined unions' ability to do their jobs properly, but also created a very specific and massive bureaucracy to manage minor situations, which is very surprising from a government that always claimed to prefer less bureaucracy.

How will repealing those bills, which is what Bill C-4 proposes, affect the bureaucracy that was proposed by the Conservative government of the day?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

I am proud to stand today to speak in support of Bill C-4. The war on organized labour is over. This legislation would reverse the legacy of the previous government, which rushed through two anti-union measures, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, just prior to the last election. Those measures put in place redundant reporting requirements and made it harder to certify and easier to decertify a union. With Bill C-4, our government would repeal both of these punitive pieces of legislation.

The reasons we are doing this are threefold. The old combination of legislation under Bills C-377 and C-525 was unnecessary, impeded collective bargaining, and was ideologically driven.

Argument number one is that the old legislation is unnecessary. No one asked for Bills C-377 and C-525. Employees did not ask for them, unions did not ask for them, and even employers were not clamouring for this legislation. These bills constituted a solution to a problem that did not even exist. The only champions of Bills C-377 and C-525 were the members of the previous government. The ostensible reason they asserted was that they were trying to promote increased financial transparency and accountability for unions and to inject democratic principles into their processes. This rationale was defective then, and it remains defective now. First, to the idea that unions are not transparent and that members do not get to see the financial statements or expenditures, this information was and has always been made available to union members. Unions are member-based organizations that release information to their members, information that is confidential.

My colleagues across the way keep harping on about how unions are undemocratic organizations. Once again, that is incorrect.

Unions meet regularly, and all members are welcome to participate. At meetings, members are empowered to hold their leaders accountable. Discussions and debate take place during the meetings, differences of opinion are aired, and solutions are put forward. Taken together, those aspects are features of a democratic system.

Unions also hold membership votes. Decisions are made by the members themselves. The members are the ones who make decisions and issue instructions. Leaders are elected by union members and can be removed from their positions. That is another key principle of a democratic system.

I say this with some experience. I am the product of an organized workplace. For the past 12 years, before being elected, I served as a civil servant with the Ontario public service, practising law as a crown attorney. I have first-hand knowledge of the transparency and accountability parameters by which unions abide.

Yet another argument offered by the previous government in support of the old package of legislation was that it represented a modest increase in the financial disclosure obligations for unions. Again, this is incorrect. The reporting requirement in old Bill C-377 calls for at least 24 detailed statements to be submitted by unions of any size, from the smallest groups to the largest national bodies. The collection and managing of these submissions would cost the government millions of dollars, $11 million to start the oversight mechanism and $2 million every year thereafter. Those are not my figures. They come from the Canada Revenue Agency and the parliamentary budget officer. Just so we are clear, under Bills C-377 and C-525, the previous Conservative government increased the size and scope of government and government regulation, adding to the amount of red tape and, more important, adding to the amount that Canadian taxpayers would be required to shell out for such additional bureaucracy. The irony is palpable.

Argument number two is that the old legislation impeded collective bargaining. As I said at the outset, Bill C-525 made it harder to certify and easier to decertify a union. With the new Bill C-4, we would repeal those provisions. Our government recognizes that certification of a union is an important part of the collective bargaining process.

As I mentioned, I spent 12 years as a crown attorney specializing in the area of constitutional law. Section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of association. That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include “the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining”. Why is collective bargaining so important as to warrant constitutional protection? The Supreme Court has explained that, in paragraph 58 of a decision called MPAO.

The Supreme Court said:

The guarantee functions to protect individuals against more powerful entities. By banding together in the pursuit of common goals, individuals are able to prevent more powerful entities from thwarting their legitimate goals and desires. In this way, the guarantee of freedom of association empowers vulnerable groups and helps them work to right imbalances in society. It protects marginalized groups and makes possible a more equal society.

Collective bargaining is important because it helps to promote fairness and equality. We get that and we are not going to waste more taxpayer dollars litigating these types of cases in the courts. On that point, I would simply note that the charter challenge launched by the Alberta Union of Public Employees against the old Bill C-377 was suspended immediately upon our government's announcement that we would be repealing the government's punitive legislation.

However, it is not just me who understands the utility of collective bargaining as a vehicle for addressing inequality, it is also my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. It is people like Mr. Hassan Yussuff, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is my neighbour in Roncesvalles Village and a tireless advocate for workers' rights. It is people like Wyatt Bilger, a hard-working carpenter and resident of my riding and a member of Carpenters Union Local 27. It is people like the countless artists, filmmakers, performers, and television producers in my riding who contribute so much culturally to our community, who are also proud members of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. It is people like the hard-working tradespeople and manufacturing employees in Parkdale—High Park who are members of LiUNA, Unifor, and the CAW.

All of these individuals and groups appreciate what this newly elected government recognizes, that workplaces that include collective bargaining are a net positive, not a net negative for our communities.

Argument number three is that the old legislation was ideologically driven. There was no rationale whatsoever that informed the passage of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 other than rigid, anti-union sentiment. To illustrate this point, let us look no further than the rushed passage of the bills through Parliament. Bill C-377 was one of the four bills to get to the Senate just before the writ was issued for the last election. It was expedited to the Senate and was made made into law. But one of the four bills that received support from all parties in this chamber was left to die on the Senate order paper in place of passing Bill C-377.

What I am talking about is Bill C-279 that had been introduced as private members' legislation by my NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Bill C-279 was going to amend the Canada Human Rights Act to include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination. All parties supported and passed that private member's bill in the House in the 41st Parliament. However, instead of championing that bill in the Senate, the previous Conservative government decided to promote the passage of Bill C-377. Conservatives chose to attack organized labour rather than back Bill C-279, which would have protected the rights and freedoms of gender and gender variant Canadians who deserve the same treatment and rights as every other Canadian.

Not only did the Conservatives attack unions, they told trans and gender variant Canadians that their rights were not a priority. Thankfully that was yet another mistake of the Conservatives that our government has pledged to rectify. The commitment to amend the Canada Human Rights Act to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination is in the mandate letter for the Attorney General of Canada.

We have seen this ideological pattern before in terms of the old war on the environment, the war on the civil service, and the war on evidence-based policy. We have taken stands to reverse all of those previous battles. Now with Bill C-4, our government brings to an end the war on organized labour.

The role of this government, of any government, is to create jobs, but it is not just about creating any jobs, it is about creating good quality, secure, well-paying jobs. We recognize that unions help to do this. They ensure fair compensation for workers, promote safety for individuals, and protect workers' job security and their well-being.

A secure worker is a more productive worker and productive workers are good for the economy. We understand this. The previous government did not. As I said, the war on organized labour is over. Unions are not the enemy of progress, they are a partner in that progress. Our government is committed to working with them, not against them, to further the economic development of this country.

For these reasons, I urge members in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and his answers with rapt attention. I participated in the debates on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which are now law.

Many of the aspects of these bills that we discussed and voted on were clearly designed not to address a specific problem but to undermine unions' ability to do their work. One of those aspects is the mandatory disclosure of expenses in excess of $5,000, initially, and salaries over $100,000.

I would like to know why the government of the day, which is now in opposition, wanted to create that kind of bureaucracy to monitor small expenses, which are transparent for all unions anyway?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say in all transparency that I am absolutely shocked by the comments made by members opposite today in debate on this legislation.

My riding is Saint John—Rothesay and it has a deep and historic labour movement, a very strong labour history. I had the pleasure two weeks ago to visit the Frank & Ella Hatheway labour exhibit and was given a tour by George Vair and Chuck Hickey.

The party opposite's agenda over the last 10 years has been nothing short of degrading and demoralizing union workers and its own union workers in the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I have many friends in that union. Over 10 years they have been demoralized and degraded.

Let us be clear. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were designed for one reason and that was to weaken unions.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important bill, a bill I invite all members of the House to support in order to restore a clear and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that both my parents were union members. It is through the labour movement and through their fight for fair wages, fair benefits, and safe working conditions that my family and our family prospered in Canada. We owe it to a strong middle class.

If passed, Bill C-4 would repeal the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, both of which have undermined labour unions and labour relations in our country. Let me tell members how.

I will start with Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require all labour organizations and labour trusts across Canada to provide very detailed financial and other information to the Minister of National Revenue. This information would then be made available to the public on the Canada Revenue Agency's website. If labour organizations do not comply with these rules, they would face hefty fines.

At first glance, these new reporting requirements might seem like a good thing; sharing financial information promotes transparency and accountability. I am sure members of the House would agree that is a worthy goal. I do. However, and there is a big however, if we examine the bill further, we will find that in fact it discriminates against labour unions.

First, Bill C-377 discriminates against unions because it places onerous, unfair public reporting obligations on them that do not apply to other organizations, such as professional associations that benefit from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act.

Why is this onerous task imposed on unions alone? Why tip the scales? Perhaps these financial reporting requirements would be justified if similar requirements did not already exist elsewhere, but they do.

Unions already are required to disclose financial information to their members under the Canada Labour Code and many provincial labour relations statutes. This includes British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition to Bill C-377 discriminating against unions, it is also unnecessary. It creates an extra administrative burden, just another layer of red tape. The Liberal Party of Canada does not like red tape.

There is another reason that the bill is inherently unfair to labour unions. Simply put, it creates an imbalance between unions and employers during the collective bargaining process. How exactly? By giving employers access to key union information, without employers being required to share similar information. This makes for a very uneven playing field during the collective bargaining process.

For example, employers would know how much money the union had in a strike fund for a possible work stoppage and how long they could stay out if it came to a strike. This clearly undermines the union's most important negotiating lever.

I would like to move on to Bill C-525, which Bill C-4 would also repeal.

Bill C-525 changed the way that unions were certified and decertified under the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It replaced what is known as a card-check system with a mandatory vote system.

For decades, and I emphasize decades, prior to Bill C-525 coming into force, if a union demonstrated that a majority of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for those workers. A vote was only required if less than a majority signed, but there was still enough to indicate a strong interest. Under the Canada Labour Code, it was 35% of workers. Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote and to require a vote even where more than 50% of workers had signed a union membership card.

More important, Bill C-525 also makes it easier for unions to be decertified. It lowers the threshold to trigger a decertification vote from majority support to 40%.

Overall, as stakeholders such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees have pointed out, the card-check model is faster, more efficient and more likely to be free of employer interference than the new method.

In short, Bill C-525 makes it harder for employees to unionize and makes it easier for a union to be decertified. It tips the scales in an unbalanced manner.

Bill C-525 made significant changes to a system that worked. There was a democratic and fair system in place for employees for decades to express their support for a union. A card-check system relies on majority support, a key democratic principle.

The bottom line is that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 upset the delicate balance between the rights of employers and the rights of employees. The bill put before the House, Bill C-4, seeks to repeal the legislative changes made by these two bills. It seeks to restore the rights of labour organizations in our proud country.

Unifor's national president, Jerry Dias, welcomes Bill C-4. He said, “...we have simply been given back rights that were taken from us...”. Why are these rights so important? Because the rights of labour unions and the workers they represent are also the rights of Canadians. Who are those Canadians? They are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and cleaners, the people we encounter everyday. They are Canadians who are working hard to put money in their banks and to save for their children's future.

As elected officials, we have a responsibility to protect those rights. Labour unions advocate for decent wages and safe working environments. They play an essential role in maintaining positive labour relations between employers and employees. Sound labour relations protect the rights of Canadian workers and help the middle class grow and prosper.

Let us not allow Bills C-377 and C-525 to continue to diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement. I urge the members of the House to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and lend their support for Bill C-4, which would restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am honoured to give my maiden speech on Bill C-4, a bill that would re-establish a productive balance between unions and employers. I represent the riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, where many proud union brothers and sisters reside, work, and prosper together. The building trades, teachers, electricians, labourers, police, steelworkers, carpenters, and many others work to build this prosperous and peaceful city through their ingenuity and stubborn belief in hard work that should be rewarded with fair wages, safe working conditions, and equality of opportunity.

These are the values that I grew up with. Unions were a big part of my life and my family's life for the last two generations. I am the daughter of a proud steelworker. My father, Phil Tassi, was a millwright at Dofasco. It was through his hard work and passionate commitment that my family prospered and that I, with my brothers and sister, were able to build lives founded on security and stability. In fact, my sister, my brothers, my mother, and I all worked in the steel industry.

While Dofasco was never unionized, it benefited from what other unions in Hamilton attained. The hard-won achievements of unionized labour set an example for my father's employer to give its workers comparable rights, safety, and wages. This is but one very personal example of how unions directly and indirectly have improved the lives of Hamiltonians.

When conditions are at their best, unions, employers, and government work together to build safe, prosperous, and stable communities. It is this balance that Bill C-4 seeks to re-establish. This bill sets right what was skewed by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Hamilton is a city whose history is closely connected to the labour movement. It was in Hamilton that the movement for the nine-hour workday in Canada was started. It was in Hamilton in 1920 that Katie McVicar and Mary McNab, who were shoe workers and members of the Knights of Labour, fought for the rights of women to join the labour force and to be respected.

It was in Hamilton in 1935 that steelworkers organized a strike. Their employer did not accede to their demands. However, a greater victory was achieved. The union expanded to include all workers, regardless of skill or nationality. That was progress. These are the footings of the middle class in Hamilton: strong, built of cement, steel and hard work, wrought by the hands of people who believed in themselves and in one another.

Unions have been creating conditions where individual workers can be resourceful, innovative, and contribute to an employer's intellectual capital. That is good for workers and for business.

The Prime Minister has made a commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country. This will be a welcome relief from the previous government's approach, where labour and employers were pushed apart by legislation aimed at dividing and separating, rather than creating a healthy balance between worker and employer.

One only needs to look to Hamilton to see how a city can be built up through labour success and ravaged when industry declines. Even former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal criticized Bill C-377. He stated:

This will actually worsen labour relations in Canada, slow economic development, and upend the balance between free collective bargaining, capital investment and return, which are vital to a strong and free mixed-market economy. As a Conservative, I oppose the upending of this balance.

There is no need for Bill C-377. We already have legislation in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members. All of this is referred to in the Canada Labour Code. The needless red tape created by Bill C-377 creates an unfair playing field, where unions could be disadvantaged during collective bargaining. We believe in fairness for both parties during collective bargaining and feel that tilting the game in favour of one party is an affront to the ancient principles of fairness upon which Canadian democracy is founded.

The introduction of Bill C-377 in the House of Commons was an affront to Hamilton's working people. It was a bill designed to solve a problem that did not exist. No one I know in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas has ever told me they are clamouring for the far-reaching and personal information this legislation was designed to uncover.

Why was the last government interested in the private, personal information of union members? The Income Tax Act protects taxpayers from revealing their personal financial information. Yet, Bill C-377 reversed those protections and will force the disclosure of people's personal information to the general public. That is one of the reasons we are repealing this unnecessary and mean-spirited bill.

Unions have an important role to play. This repeal would allow the unions to continue to focus on finding their members work in this challenging economy, rather than focusing on mountains of unnecessary filings to the CRA.

Unions are democratic organizations and they are accountable to their members. If members do not like what unions are doing with their money, those members can vote their leaders out.

In fact, Bill C-377 requires that labour organizations disclose information that no other organization is required to disclose. That is not fair treatment.

There has been some discussion in the House about how other countries in the world require disclosure. Let us consider some of the facts.

I believe one example of France was raised. However, in that country, not only do the unions report but the employers report, too. In the United States, legislation similar to Bill C-377 has existed for a number of years, but one could argue that it has done little to further the cause of transparency and accountability.

Having discussed Bill C-377, I will briefly consider the ramifications of Bill C-525.

Both the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications and the Canadian Labour Council have argued that Bill C-525 establishes a dangerous precedent for labour relations law reform in Canada.

Traditionally, in Canada, any amendments to labour relations law have been arrived at through tripartite consultation between employer, labour, and government. This tripartite consultation has been considered essential by stakeholders to the maintenance of a labour-employer balance. Bill C-525 was introduced as a private member's bill, and private members' bills are outside the traditional tripartite process.

The tripartite process encourages balance between labour and employers. However, the previous government chose to use a back door to pass its legislation instead. This demonstrates a clear and utter disregard by the previous government for Canada's democratic tradition in labour relations law.

Bill C-525 is also an anti-union bill. More specifically, by requiring a secret ballot vote, Bill C-525 adds an unnecessary layer to the process of union formation. Bill C-525 makes it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified.

As I have already said, organized labour has provided stability and security to workers. To impede unionization is to hold workers back by making them fearful of being thrown into precarious working conditions. This makes people focus on the short term. It makes them anxious and tentative, rather than open and confident.

Hamilton and Canada were built by proud, confident workers. I came to Ottawa to represent a city that grew out of the fires of industry, through hard work, sacrifice, and care for each other. When Hamilton was most productive, it was because of labour, employers, and government working to create a safe, stable, and prosperous city, where people could innovate and create from a place of relative security. This collaboration depends on a balance between labour and employers, which was upset by the ideology of an anti-union agenda of the previous government.

Bill C-4 would be a positive step toward righting the balance between labour and employers.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my esteemed colleague regarding the Liberals' intent to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Both of these bills were about transparency. As my colleague talked about earlier, the first bills we introduced as a government were about increasing transparency, and one of the first acts of the Liberal government is to introduce bills to reduce transparency.

Bill C-377 had an important purpose. The purpose was to extend the principle of public disclosure to a group of institutions that enjoy substantial public benefit: labour organizations. This is key. Public disclosure would increase the confidence of Canadians that unions spend their money wisely and effectively.

Regarding Bill C-525, which dealt with the issue of voting rights, it replaced a system called “card check”. The card-check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without allowing all employees to express their opinions. In fact, the unionization of a workplace could occur without a significant portion of the bargaining unit having been made aware of it.

Again, both of these bills dealt with improving transparency. In our strong view, Canadian union workers have the right to know how their mandatory union dues are spent. That is why our government passed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Repealing these laws sends a very clear message: the Liberal government cares more about thanking union bosses, who did everything in their power to help them get elected, rather than the thousands of hard-working union members whose dues were spent without consultation. Union leaders need to be held accountable and tell their members and the public how their tax-advantaged income is spent.

The Conservative Party will continue to support union transparency and stand up for union workers. As I have said in a couple of my other speeches, it is becoming quite clear that the only party that cares about Canadian workers and workers' families is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Even some labour organizations are very strongly in favour of our bill. The Christian Labour Association, Dick Heinen, the executive director, in February 2014, said:

Now fundamentally, CLAC believes in competition in the labour relations environment in Canada. We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all.

As well, John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, in his testimony to the Senate committee, said:

FETCO members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card-check system for the purpose of determining if a union is to become a certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles. It allows each and every employee to express their true wishes without undue influence or disclosure of how they cast their ballot. This is the mechanism that is used for the electoral process in Canada, and it is the fairest process.

It is no coincidence that the public sector union bosses worked hard to get the Liberal government elected, and now, quite frankly, it is payback time. The first thing that the Liberal government is doing is repealing these two very important bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

In addition, the President of the Treasury Board made a point of announcing that he is restoring the sick leave benefit to the public sector. That is a cost of $900 million a year. That is $900 million that is not available for health care, the environment, agriculture, and infrastructure. However, again we can see it is definitely payback time. Now we have a government that is beholden to public sector union bosses.

Quite interestingly, what I am seeing in the House and in government is a merging of the ideology of the Liberals and the NDP. We have the champagne socialists riding with the limousine Liberals. Quite frankly, the NDP has not changed. It is still the party of bad ideas and toxic policies. What is changing is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is moving very quickly to the left, and their alliance with public sector union bosses against the interest of Canadians in general is proof of that.

I actually would like to call up a committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada so that we can list a species called the “blue Liberal”, which is now in danger. They are the Liberals who actually cared about business. They were the prominent blue Liberals who were talking in favour of pipelines, economic development, and free trade. However, they are being completely ignored. I think the Species at Risk Act needs to look at the blue Liberal.

Given that it is payback time, let us imagine what is going on in the negotiation room between the government and the public sector unions. Do members not think for a minute that the public sector unions do not point their finger at the relevant Liberal negotiators and say, “Look, we got you elected and you better deliver”? The Liberal Party is bargaining with the same group that helped bring it into power.

The President of the Treasury Board is making a sham trying to talk tough, but we know what will really go on behind closed doors. These negotiations are fundamentally flawed. There is another word I could use, but it is quite unparliamentary. The negotiations will be all about how much they can fleece the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, the public sector unions have become an entity unto themselves. We see the evolution of public sector unions as powerful political entities that in some cases can determine who forms a government. The public sector unions will always remind the Liberals who got them elected, and the public interest itself will be left behind.

This is bad for democracy and it is bad for our country. The public service is supposed to be neutral and carry out the wishes of the duly elected government of the day, but the trends I am seeing make me very uneasy.

Again, I want to reiterate that as this session evolves and the legislation evolves, it is becoming quite clear that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that stands up for the workers of Canada. We defend the natural resource industries. We defend the oil sands. We encourage the growth of pipelines. We are the only people who care about working families in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, what I have spoken about today is the democratic process. Bill C-525, which is a private member's bill that I hope the House considers, is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Our intention here, and I think it was the intention of both private members who brought forward their legislation, and I would encourage people to speak to those individuals about their private member's bills, was to make sure that there was transparency as well as democracy being exercised.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very active in the debate surrounding Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were a direct attack on how unions operate.

When we debated the issue, the Conservative government of the day argued that it had the right to interfere in this matter because union dues were tax deductible and therefore some degree of accountability was needed. I also recall that professional associations, which also collect dues that are tax deductible, were not included in the bill.

It was therefore abundantly clear to me that this was a direct attack on how unions operate, particularly regarding the issue of unions having to show their accounting records. Obviously, this gives negotiators on the management side an advantage, since they would then be familiar with the financial position of the unions with which they are negotiating.

Why will the Conservative members not just admit that those two bills were a deliberate attack on unions in order to undermine their ability to stand up to the government, which was extremely harmful over the past four years?

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

Mr. Speaker, just so we are clear, the bill that was brought forward was a private member's bill. It was not government legislation. I think all Canadians agree, though, and I am sure the member would agree, that with regard to the bill I was speaking to, another private member's bill, Bill C-525, a democratic, transparent process is what is most appropriate.

For me, particularly as I spoke today about Bill C-525, making sure that we have a secret ballot vote is essential. It is a cornerstone and a principle of our Canadian democracy that we should all be defending.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question regarding consultation on Bill C-4.

The member talked about how none of the consultation happened before with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. However, we did extensive consultation. We had many union members and union leaders come in at committee and Senate stage to talk about this.

Does the member not understand that some of the polling we did with Leger and Nanos showed that more than 84% of union members were in support of the legislation we put forward.

Did the Liberals do any consultation with actual union members, or was it just with union leadership?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-4. Bill C-4 removes many of the barriers and administrative burdens on labour groups that the Conservative government put in place.

I would like to begin by saying that unions have played an important role in Canada for a very long time. It is that partnership that has contributed to the success of this country and our economy. It is important to mention that it has also improved the fundamental rights of individuals in the workplace. That is essential and should be noted.

The contributions of unions have been very large, but I would like to share a few points with the House tonight.

Unions have played a major role in establishing an eight-hour workday, a five-day work week, parental benefits, which are essential as well, and health and safety standards. There are many areas where the unions have contributed to the success of those changes.

Labour unions have greatly contributed to the balance between the rights of workers and the ability of employers to run efficient operations and businesses.

In my past life, I spent 11 years as the superintendent of the French school board. During that time, I had many opportunities to work closely with unions, unions that were our partners and our workers. I can assure members that it was a successful experience with successful negotiations. The employees were able to benefit from many of the things we negotiated, but the school board was also able to gain from the negotiations. It was a partnership that was extremely important.

Unfortunately, Bill C-377 has tipped the scales in favour of management by forcing the public disclosure of information, which in most cases, is not required for private corporations.

It is important to mention that Bill C-4 is in no way intended to cut transparency.

Bill C-377 is redundant legislation.

If we look at the province of Nova Scotia, the Trade Union Act has provisions that allow all union members to access copies of any financial statement free of charge. The result of this transparency measure is that no complaints have been filed in Nova Scotia over the last five years on this type of issue.

I must also mention that the province of Nova Scotia has noticed the federal government's interference in this area, which is traditionally a provincial jurisdiction. At the May 7, 2015 meeting of the Senate committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Nova Scotia Minister of Labour and Advanced Education, Hon. Kelly Regan, stated:

governments all across Canada are doing what they can to eliminate regulatory duplication and red tape....It's hard to understand why the federal government would enter into this area of provincial jurisdiction.

I agree fully with the minister.

It is even more surprising to hear the opposition say that most people were in favour. B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and of course, Nova Scotia all opposed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

I would now like to talk a little bit about Bill C-525. This Liberal government is proud to be able to undo the damage done by the Conservative government's Bill C-525. That bill is forcing workers who want to create a new union to obtain the signatures of 40% of its members and have a secret ballot on the issue. Obviously, the Conservative government's strategy was to add layers to the process for creating a new union.

Our government firmly believes that we should not discourage people from participating in a union. That is why we want to restore the former system under which workers only needed the signatures of 50% plus one.

As with so many of its initiatives, our government is working hard to collaborate with all regions of the country, with all sectors of the economy, to bring real change for all Canadians.

Our government has chosen to put its trust in this country's labour organizations and the workers they represent. We must ensure that they are not treated unfairly at the negotiating table. This represents a change of tone and attitude compared to that of the previous government. It is a tone where we treat not only unions and their workers with respect but also our indigenous communities, veterans, families, and democratic institutions.

I am proud to provide my full support to this bill and I congratulate the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for her leadership in bringing this legislation to the House.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I sit here listening to members from the Conservative Party who, in some cases, literally thump on their desks for the cause of democracy, I would be remiss if I did not take note of the fact that when Bill C-525 was first presented in the House, it said that if people did not attend a meeting on certification, the government would, in effect, vote for them and say how they would be voting. In the case of certification, members not present would, effectively, be deemed to have voted against certification. In cases of votes for decertification, union members not present would be deemed to have voted for decertification.

Surely, if the government were to present legislation in the House that were to dictate the votes of members not present for votes, all of us, including members in the Conservative caucus, I think, would say that this was an affront to democracy.

In light of that conception in the original bill, does the member find it as rich as I do to be accepting lectures today from the Conservative caucus on the nature of democracy?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, the proposed repeal of two labour bills passed by the previous government. This is an important piece of legislation, and I encourage my fellow members to support its passage in the House.

Some do not agree with our moving to repeal these bills, which is fair enough. However, suggesting the government has a hidden agenda goes too far. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister publicly made a commitment to repeal both these pieces of legislation. Canadians went to the polls and they expect us to keep our commitments. It was also clearly spelled out and made public in her mandate after the minister was sworn in as Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. This commitment was restated by the Prime Minister when he spoke to the Canadian Labour Congress in November. Far from being part of some hidden agenda, the government's intention to repeal these bills was made very clear, stated often, and its reasons for doing so were repeated frequently.

Let us start with the most important reason. Repealing these bills would help restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. While both of these bills pose a number of problems, today I am going to focus on the legislative amendments made by Bill C-525. Bill C-525 changed the union certification and decertification processes under three federal labour relations statutes: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Prior to these amendments enacted through Bill C-525, federally regulated unions could use what was called a “card check system” for certification. If a union demonstrated that a majority of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for these workers, although it was only required if less than a majority signed but enough to indicate a strong interest, 35% under the Canada Labour Code, for example.

Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot, and to require a vote even where more than 50% of voters had signed union member cards. It also made it easier for unions to be decertified by lowering the threshold to trigger a decertification vote to 40%, compared to majority support, which was previously required. Essentially, Bill C-525 made it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize. This is not good for our economy and it is not good for Canadians. Unions help to address inequality by helping to ensure fair wages. They help protect worker safety and prevent discrimination in the workplace. They also help employers because a fair workplace is a more productive workplace, and more productive workplaces help to grow our economy and help strengthen our middle class.

What was presented in Bill C-525 was essentially a solution in search of a problem. There were no great rallies on Parliament Hill or even in the boardrooms demanding that we change a union certification system that had worked successfully for many years. The card check system, whereby a union is certified by demonstrating majority support through signed union cards, has been used successfully for many years in the federal jurisdiction and in several provinces. A number of unions, like Unifor and the Airline Pilots Association, argued that it is fast and efficient and much more likely to be free of employer interference than the mandatory secret ballot system brought in under Bill C-525. The card check system is not undemocratic. It required a majority support through signed cards. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has strong measures in place to ensure the process of signed cards is fair.

It should also be noted that representatives from both sides of the bargaining table were highly critical of how the previous government brought in these changes. Both bills were brought in as private members' bills, and without consultation with employers, unions, or other levels of government.

Many argue that it set a very dangerous precedent for future labour reform. They are right. We believe that fair and balanced labour policies developed through real and meaningful consultation with unions, employers, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public are essential for harmonious labour relations.

Bill C-377 also presents problems that could have been averted with proper consultation. We have heard my colleagues talk about that in great detail. Among other things, it has the potential to seriously disrupt collective bargaining processes. For example, detailed information about unions, including information on union strike funds, would be available to employers. It seems like a blatant attempt to make things harder for unions. We recognize the essential role that unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping the middle class to grow and prosper.

It is clear that the legislative amendments enacted through these bills must be repealed in order to restore fairness and balance in our approach to labour relations in Canada. To do less would be a disservice to workers, employers, and the economy.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to appreciate the fact that I am talking about my private member's Bill C-525. Bill C-377 was a transparency mechanism that was brought in by one of my colleagues. He would be better served asking my colleague about that, but I support the notion of transparency.

Taxpayers subsidize union dues being paid to the tune of $500 million a year. That is exactly the budget of running the entire Parliament and democracy of our country. That is a lot of money and union members have a right to know where that money is being spent.

I do not think there was anything wrong with a $5,000 threshold. It is a mandatory tax if one is a union member. Union members have to pay it. That is the deal and that is fine. I do not disagree with that deal. I think union members ought to know where it goes.

After all our celebrations on democratic rights for women getting the right to vote in Manitoba, and references to Irene Parlby, one of the Famous Five, who is from my riding and came from Alix, Alberta, is the hon. member going to wear as a badge of honour the fact that when he passes this legislation proposed by the Liberals, he is going to take away the right to vote of every woman worker in this country?

That is the badge that he and the Liberal Party are going to wear because every woman, who is part of a union or not part of a union, has just lost the right to vote. I would be ashamed of that record.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in my place to speak to this today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

First, I want to thank everyone in the previous Parliament who passed my private member's Bill C-525. I am very disappointed at how this debate has been framed by members in the Liberal Party, the NDP, and others.

My bill is not an anti-union bill. It has been long established that unions have the right to exist and that Canadians have a charter right to associate and affiliate with one another. That is not what is in question here.

My bill is not anti-union. My bill is pro-democracy, and it worked in part with Bill C-377, which is pro-transparency. Those were the issues.

My bill came about as a result of consultations with my constituents. Every time we hear a Liberal MP or an NDP MP talk about consultations, the only people they are talking to are union leaders, or big business.

The Conservative Party actually talks to everyday ordinary Canadians. We know we are on the right side on this issue. We know we are right because polling information clearly indicates where Canadians are and where workers are, in particular where union workers are on this issue.

I already have had a number of calls from constituents and card carrying union members who are disappointed that it is a priority of the Liberal government to undo what we were able to do in the last Parliament, which was bestow a mandatory secret ballot in the process of certifying or decertifying a union.

How can it be called democracy if we take away the right to a secret ballot? It has been established long ago that the hallmark of any modern democracy is a secret ballot vote. Would members of Parliament feel that they were here legitimately if they were able to go door knocking and stand on people's doorsteps, make their pitch and say that they happened to have a ballot in their hands, and a couple of their friends with them, and encourage people to sign those ballots and vote for them. That is exactly what the card check process is.

I have been a member of a union, and my union served me well in times when I needed it. However, I was also in the hall where I heard my union representatives use these kinds of tactics, tactics that we hear of all the time, threats and intimidation, boisterousness, the louder they spoke, the more forceful their point was. It does not matter how right they were, it just mattered how loud they were. It was not necessary. I did not need to be convinced. I was going to support whatever we decided to do as a group. I did not need to be intimidated or beat into line on these issues.

I have also sat across the table as a municipal councillor negotiating on behalf of taxpayers for a public union. I saw through those secret negotiations, much like the ones the NDP always claimed, when we were doing trade negotiations. Every negotiation was done this way. I never heard an NDP member of Parliament say that union negotiations should be done in front of the entire world for everybody to see. Those members think TPP should be done that way, but they do not think a union negotiation should be done that way.

Notwithstanding that hypocrisy, I have been there. I have seen who was looking after who in these negotiations. I saw union leaders ensure that whatever the contract was, if it started to go bad for the union people, the people at the very top, the people with the seniority, not the new people, not the new workers, not the most vulnerable workers in the union, the ones who had the least seniority, but the ones who had the most seniority, the people with the most seniority looked after themselves. They were the ones who rose up to the top of the union leadership. The ones with the least seniority were vulnerable. Whatever negotiations happened, the people at the top made sure they took care of themselves first.

Where would that union member's right be to hold his or her union leaders to account if they were not actually representing even a junior member of the union to the best of their ability? There was no way because there was no mandatory secret ballot vote to determine who would represent those people at the collective bargaining table. This is absolutely fundamental.

We hear the other side complaining about a number of these issues, that Bill C-525 is anti-union, that it is creating disparity. Bill C-525 actually created the same process for creating a union as decertifying a union. Yet, the minister right now claims that they are going back to a more balanced approach. In her opinion, a more balanced approach would make it far easier for a union to be created and far harder for a union to be decertified. If it is the same way going in as it is going out, I do not understand how that tips the scales. That makes the scales level.

As a union leader, would a person not want to have his or her presence as a collective bargaining agent on behalf of the employees ratified by a secret ballot vote? Would he or she not like to carry that forward in confidence, knowing full well that he or she has 50% plus one of the membership of the union supporting him or her to negotiate a deal that is in their best interests?

The way it worked before my bill was passed was with a card check system. That is fine. A card check system is still used. It is just used to determine the threshold for when a vote should be called. That is fine. We must have some way of gauging interest.

However, we can do a card check under any guise. We can take a card to someone who is neither fluent in English nor French and tell them that they needed to sign this card to receive their pay and benefits. So, they sign a card. They do not know what they are signing. All of a sudden, there is 50% plus one of the members of the union. It was automatic. It is 50% plus one. It was automatic.

Is this not problematic? Does anyone not see an issue with this? It was open to abuse. It was open to intimidation.

What is wrong with a secret ballot?

I do not know whom the members in the Liberal Party consulted. They had closed-door meetings shortly after the election, but every union leader who came before the human resources committee during the deliberations on Bill C-525 had nothing but good things to say about the secret ballot.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada said that “CLAC supports efforts to...strengthen the democratic rights of workers” and stated that it looked forward to further speaking to the legislation when the Senate dealt with it. The CLAC representative repeated, “Yes, we are in favour of secret ballots.” That is a union leader who said that.

Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the largest public service union in Canada, said:

Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike actions, as examples.

Really? Robyn Benson said that in front of the committee. What is the problem? What is the issue? They want to be legitimized. They want to have that process legitimized.

FETCO also agreed with it. Mr. Farrell from FETCO said:

I believe the major disadvantage is that there's no clear evidence that all of the potential union members have had an opportunity to seriously consider the question of a unionization and to express their opinion behind the screen of a ballot box in a secret ballot vote.

What Mr. Farrell was actually saying and responding to there was a question that is very fundamental. If they do a card check system they actually would not even have to check with all the members of the bargaining unit. They could just go until they got 50% plus one, wipe their hands, call it a day. They did not even check with everyone. People can show up the next day at work never knowing that a union drive had even taken place and be an automatic member of the union.

How is that fair? How is that a democratic process? People do not even have an opportunity to discuss it.

I have a lot more examples. There are numerous polls by Leger and Nanos and ask the question, “Should Canadians have the right to a secret ballot before they decide to join a union or not? What is their best interest?” In every case, as confirmed by the testimony of union leaders themselves, Canadians overwhelmingly, over 70%, and sometimes over 80%, say, “Yes, this is true”. And when they asked an actual union member of someone who was in a union, that number even got higher, sometimes up into the high 80s percentages.

It makes absolutely no sense. There is not a problem here that needs to be undone, contrary to what these folks over there want Canadians to believe.

We on this side of the House, the Conservative Party, and only the Conservative Party, stand up for transparency and for accountability for workers.

If anyone in Canada has any doubts who is on the side of the everyday working man and woman in this country, it is Conservative members of Parliament.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we very much believe that for Canada to have a strong middle class and a strong economy, we need to have a strong labour movement. We believe that unions play an important role in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping unionized workers to access benefits and pensions in addition to what I have just mentioned, helping the middle class grow and prosper.

This is why we are very much committing to repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason we are repealing this bill is that we believe that there was a huge issue around the process.

The bill was highly discriminatory and deeply ideological. For it to go through a normal process, it has to be open, transparent, and consultative. The process of a private member's bill did not allow for the intensity of dialogue in consultation with the broad array of stakeholders, as if we went through a normal process.

That is why we are repealing both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to Bill C-4 today. The Government of Canada believes that we should be treating our unions in a fair and balanced way. This is the principle behind repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The other reason we are also repealing this is the whole process. If there are issues around workers or unions or just human resource policy in Canada, the best way for us to go about dealing with it is in an open, transparent, and consultative way.

To me, that is the way we should be dealing with any of the issues, both now and moving forward.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will follow the wonderful example of the hon. member for Kenora and start by giving members a bit about my background and some context.

I first want to mention that before I became an MP, I was privileged to work as a director of a large corporation. I worked for big business and was very proud to do so.

I also come from a family where my father worked for Canada Post for almost 30 years and was part of the union there. The only reason my mother does not live in poverty at the moment is that we very much benefit from his ongoing pension. The reason I mention this is that I believe we should treat all of our partners in the economy in a fair and balanced way, whether big business or unions. This is very much the principle that is behind the bill that I will be speaking to today, Bill C-4.

I am the very proud member of Parliament for Davenport, which is a riding in downtown west Toronto. We have a number of union members there, whether in the construction and labour trades, such as painters, carpenters, or from the public sector or Canada Post. There are many other unions that I have not mentioned. However, the point I want to make is that we have a lot of union members who want a fair and balanced federal labour policy, as do all Canadians. That is what we are trying to do with Bill C-4.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-4, which aims to repeal the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I would also invite all members of the House to support this important bill.

As mentioned in my introduction, in the broadest of strokes, Bill C-4 aims to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. Because this government has promised Canadians that we will do things differently from the start, the words “fairness" and “balance" resonate with me. We believe that how we do things is just as important as what we do. The laws that throw a wrench into positive working relationships between government and unions, between employers and employees, and between different levels of government do not help anyone. Negative and contentious labour relations are destructive. They gnaw away at the foundation of a structure until it can no longer stand. However, it is that structure that supports workers, employers, and our economy as a whole. Therefore, we need that structure to be strong.

My colleague the Minister of Labour has taken members through some of the finer points of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I would like to use my time today to explain the impact these bills have on unions and workers and how they and in turn all Canadians would benefit from the repeal of the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

I will begin by commenting on Bill C-377. Members should consider the fact that this bill forces labour organizations and labour trusts to provide very detailed financial and other information to the Canada Revenue Agency, such as salaries and time spent working on political or lobbying activities.

The bill also requires disclosure of all disbursements greater than $5,000 by unions, including names and addresses of anyone whose goods or services are purchased. There are a lot of other data requirements, which I will not go into. However, the key point is that the bill requires information that no other organization is required to provide, be it a public, private, non-profit, or charitable organization, or even a political party. To some this may not seem entirely unreasonable at first glance. However, if we dig a little deeper we would find that it could have serious and substantial ramifications.

First, it creates an extra level of unnecessary red tape, which could be particularly problematic for smaller organizations with fewer resources at their disposal. The Canada Revenue Agency would share that burden. It would have to develop new and expensive IT systems and other administrative systems to implement the bill. That is an unnecessary cost that would fall to Canadians. It is unnecessary because we already have legislation in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members, as we heard today during the earlier debate. All of this is referred to in the Canada Labour Code.

Furthermore, similar accountability measures have been put in place by almost every province. Bill C-377 would impose a large financial and administrative burden on labour organizations, labour trusts, and government bodies, among others, for information that is not required from other organizations. As though that were not enough, if these organizations do not report on time, they must pay a fine of $1,000 for every day they are late, up to a maximum of $25,000.

Fortunately, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, took all the necessary steps to waive reporting for the time being. However, we know that this is a temporary solution since the waiver only applies to the 2016 fiscal period. In addition to the administrative burden being significant and unjust overall, the effect that the reporting requirements would have on the collective bargaining process would also give an unfair advantage to employers at the bargaining table. For example, detailed information about union strike funds would be available to employers, which means that employers would be able to calculate how long union members might be able to stay off the job in a labour dispute. If that is not uneven footing, I do not know what is.

It is clear that Bill C-377 is unnecessary and discriminatory. It clearly disadvantages unions during the collective bargaining process. At the root of it, I believe it is an attempt to make things harder for unions and to drive a wedge between employer and employee relations in Canada.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This bill made changes to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act that affect how unions are certified and decertified. It makes it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. The changes mean the process is more susceptible to employer interference and makes unionization more difficult.

Bill C-525 is not just problematic for unions but imposes some serious burdens on others as well. For example, there are real implications for bodies such as the Canada Industrial Relations Board, as well as the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Both boards are responsible for the full cost and logistical responsibilities involved in holding representation votes. Under these changes, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would be required to hold a vote to certify a union not just when less than a majority of workers have signed union cards, but would need to do so in all cases. This would mean a fivefold increase in the board's workload.

These bills do not represent a positive contribution to labour relations in Canada. In fact, they cause real harm. It is no surprise that when policies are developed without proper consultation, as was the case with both of these bills, they often end up causing more harm than good. Liberals believe in reforming labour policies through meaningful engagement with unions, employers, stakeholders, provinces and territories, and the Canadian public. It is the only way to ensure a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. As we have said before, sound labour relations is essential for protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper. It is also the necessary foundation of a system where both employers and unions play valuable roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-4 and bring back the fair and balanced labour relations approach all Canadians want and deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to correct the record, and I want to be very clear. I would encourage the member opposite to speak to Jerry Dias, Hassan Yussuff, or numerous other union leaders in this country about how Labour Canada and I, as the minister of labour, conducted ourselves in tripartite relationships.

Bill C-525, a number of changes that were placed in the Canada Labour Code of late, and new legislation put forward to make sure that interns are protected in the workplace were all done under a tripartite relationship that was respected. It was one that I would encourage the member opposite to speak to Mr. Dias or Hassan Yussuff about, because they participated in making sure that it was appropriate.

I think it is extremely important that the Canadian public understand that this side of the House respects all workers. For me, that was exceptionally important, and I do take offence at the member opposite intimating that this was not the case.

What I would like to ask the member opposite, with respect to this, is this: If he believes that nothing was done in a tripartite way, did he actually check that on the record? Has he done that numerous times?

Also, does the member have comments with respect to those issues related to secret ballot voting, like in Bill C-525, which many of the members of my riding have come forward with? They say that it is what they would like, just like the secret ballot when one casts a ballot in Canada's democracy.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are some things I would like to clarify; specifically, around the fact that there are many organizations, private organizations, for-profit organizations, which receive government credit, government grants, which do not have the same type of reporting requirements that this bill was requesting of unions. We are going to disagree about this, obviously. That is the reason we say, and rightfully so, it was an attack on a particular group, and it did go in line with all the other attacks on all the other groups, including charities. The previous government worked behind the scenes in order to have audits done on those charities that disagreed with it. That is why I made the comment that we need to look at this in its totality.

The other thing I would like to mention is that although the member likes to talk about a secret vote as being sort of principle of Bill C-525, he needs to know that in that bill one of the secret votes was if a person was not there, somehow it secretly voted for him or her that he or she was against certification of the union. The fact that a person was not there and did not vote, it was a secret to him or her that he or she had voted “no”. It was just absurd.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, at times there are speeches in this place that are passionate but are also bordering on absurd. I heard terms in the member's speech of “destruction”, “dismantling of rights”, but she did not go into the specifics of the content of those bills.

Bill C-525 is a secret ballot. Is that a destructive right? Canadians have enjoyed that since 1874. That is a right.

The second bill, Bill C-377, deals with disclosure. The Access to Information Act was brought to the House in 1983 by Pierre Trudeau. The member's province had the same legislation in 1991. Politicians on all levels expect, and it is on my website, if people pay taxes or anything by compulsion like union dues, they should be able to know easily where it goes. This goes for charities. The member used to run the United Way. I can check what it spent online. These are reasonable measures and it is 2016.

Why is the only section of Canadian society that is resisting disclosure the labour movement?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, that will be a hard act to follow, but I think I will be able to provide the House with some more content, and perhaps clarification on some facts.

I would like to thank the hard-working Canadians in Saskatoon West who voted me to be their voice in the House of Commons. Today especially, I feel it is important and I acknowledge their support, because it is important to remind me of who I am here to serve and why. It is also important that all of us here remember exactly who is affected, positively or negatively, by the decisions we make each and every day. This is a responsibility I do not take lightly.

Many of the individuals in my riding work part time or contract positions. The majority of them work in the retail and hospitality sector. Quite a few of my constituents work in unionized workplaces. Others have been impacted by the slowdown in the resource sector. Some own businesses and have employees of their own. A great number of my constituents are new Canadians, immigrants or refugees, working two or three casual or part-time jobs, trying to balance a family, a new country, a new language, and an unfamiliar culture. Every one of these workers deserves to be protected.

With this in mind, Bill C-4 is beyond partisan politics. It is about the individuals who brought us here and about making things better for the people we all represent. That is why I support the bill. I support it as a person who cares about the rights and well-being of my constituents and my fellow Canadians.

Bill C-4 is a small step forward toward a return to recognizing and respecting the rights of the hard-working individuals, men and women, who make up our country. It is not hard for me as a member of the NDP caucus to acknowledge the support for Bill C-4. I guess it will not come as a surprise to anyone that our party supports the bill.

However, it should come as a surprise to all Canadians that the government is having to, with no small amount of shame I hope, return to the people of Canada their hard-earned rights, their constitutional rights, their right to privacy, their rights of freedom of association, and freedom of speech, rights that took decades to achieve. As such, today is a day of mixed emotions.

On one hand, we are happy to see critical rights restored to hard-working Canadians. On the other hand, we worry about the erosion of workers' rights that took place under the previous government. Today, we ask the current government to be vigilant in restoring each and every one of the rights stolen from the Canadian people. We also ask that it update parts of the Canada Labour Code that are about 60 years out of date.

A great way to help rectify that problem would be to immediately act on the recommendations of the final report of the 2006 review of the labour code. It is long overdue. Many of these recommendations and much-needed updates would benefit the many hard-working Canadians working two or three part-time jobs, trying to support a family and purchase or maintain a home, a home whose affordability is increasingly out of reach of most middle-class Canadians in Canada, let alone for those individuals working multiple jobs at minimum wage.

It is a simple and perhaps obvious truth that it is easier to destroy things than to build them. For anyone who has wrestled with a blank page, a canvas, a drafting table, or a freshly surveyed drilling site knows, creating something new is hard work. It takes time, persistence, and patience, and is not for the faint of heart. Destruction, on the other hand, is something we have been able to accomplish with ease since we were all very young. At the age of one, a child will happily smash, in a matter of seconds, a birthday cake that took his or her parents an hour and a half to create. Over the past decade, we have witnessed more than our fair share of destruction, a destruction far less playful and humorous than the smashing of the cake.

In a few short years, we have seen the dismantling of the rights for each and every individual across the nation, rights that have taken decades to create, nurture, and grow, rights that protect each one of us, but also, and more important, rights that protect the most vulnerable among us.

The previous government, in a few short years, trampled on and set fire to those rights most dear to individual Canadians, and certainly to those individuals who care about the environment, social services, workers' rights, women's right, the poor and every other marginalized individual and community in this great land; also to those individuals who care about good, honest fiscal management and the economy, and children's education and futures; and especially to those who care about indigenous communities, their languages, cultures and people. These are not and should not be seen as mutually exclusive things. They work together. Each of us is better off by including the other.

Thankfully, today is a new day, and Bill C-4 is a great first step. However, we must do better, be better, and dream much bigger, because we have a lot of ground to make up.

I implore the governing party to be bold, to take the time to recognize respect, and provide rights to individuals who brought them here, because these are individuals who make up our great country. Each of them is a hard-working Canadian.

Today we also know that many Canadians are hurting. Many have lost their jobs and are in danger of, or have already, losing their homes. Many regularly use food banks and emergency shelter that, in some cases, is becoming their everyday shelter. This is unacceptable in a country as great as Canada. We can and must do better.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary, discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on a particular segment, on unions. The bill was pushed through Parliament by the previous government, despite widespread opposition from a wide variety of interests, not just unions. Why? Because the negative effects of the bill would harshly impact each and every Canadian.

Each of these groups and associations represent individuals whose rights they consider important, whether one belongs to a union or not. Some of those individuals and groups were constitutional and privacy experts, for example, the NHL Players Association, provincial governments, Conservative and Liberal senators, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry.

Likewise, along with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, we believe this bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If not repealed, this bill will be defeated by the courts.

The New Democrats opposed the bill at every stage, because the legislation was as unnecessary as it was irresponsible. It corrupted the very idea of fairness and balance in negotiations between parties and undermined the fundamental right of free collective bargaining. It was a partisan assault on the men and women who went to work every day to provide for their families.

Canada needs a strong and healthy trade union movement. Historically speaking, unions in Canada have done much, not only for their members, but for Canadian society as a whole. When unions are weakened, all working people feel it. Why? Because, contrary to the rhetoric of those threatened by workers' associations, namely the wealthy 1% and a few misguided Conservatives, attacks on collective bargaining do not promote economic growth. Attacks like these promote inequality, not a healthy economy.

In 2002, documents based on more than 1,000 studies of the impact of unions on domestic economies, the World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and a quicker response to economic downturns. A quick response to an economic downturn seems like it might be a positive thing right about now.

The previous government claimed at the time that it was acting in the name of transparency, but the Conservatives failed to mention that unions were already required to make their financial information available to their members. The bill is an unnecessary redundancy solving a non-existent problem.

Something we have not heard yet is that the bill would cost taxpayers a great deal of money to achieve absolutely nothing.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that it would cost much more than the $2.4 million allocated by the CRA to do this level of monitoring. In fact, it was estimated that Bill C-377 would cost the Canada Revenue Agency approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database over the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million per year for subsequent years. Many estimates were even much higher than that. I am being conservative.

As such, implementing the requirements in this bill will be ridiculously expensive for what is clearly redundant and unnecessary harassment. Repealing Bill C-377 would save millions of dollars annually, both for government and for unions, money that could be much better spent creating jobs rather than stifling them. In short, this bill should never have seen the light of day, and repealing it is just common sense.

Similarly, Bill C-525 was a private member's bill supported by the previous government. The bill was designed to make it harder for workers to unionize, and easier for unions to be decertified. Once again, the previous government was solving a non-existent problem.

Bill C-525 attacks the fundamental right of association by making certification of new worker associations or unions much more difficult and the decertification of existing unions much easier. The labour law changes were made despite there being zero evidence of a problem with the previous system of union certification.

A union, like any other type of association, such as the Association of Information Technology Professionals or the Canadian Society for Civil Engineers, exists to provide support and a voice for its members. What right does a government have to meddle in the daily management of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, for example? None. Therefore, why should the government meddle in daily management of a worker association or union? On the surface, it just seems silly.

It seems a government should have much more important things to accomplish with its time, its budget, and its efforts. However, the efforts of such destructive meddling are much more nefarious than a bizarrely childish obsessiveness with union busting, and these effects have a negative impact on all Canadians. Whether a person supports unions or not, the fact is unions have been a driving force in ensuring all hard-working Canadians, whether unionized or not, receive a basic level of rights, freedoms, and protections.

The health of Canadian unions is at the heart of the health of Canadian workers' rights for each and every working Canadian. Moreover, as mentioned previously, the organized association of working people is important to Canadians and the economy. Higher wages negotiated by unions improve the lives of everyday Canadians and inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week. Standing in the way of the well-being of hard-working Canadians is bad policy, bad governance, bad fiscal management, and bad for the economy.

As such, the NDP and Canadian unions are pleased that the federal government has tabled legislation to repeal the controversial bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

The CLC president, Hassan Yussuff said:

...these bills were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

Mark Hancock, the national president of CUPE, confirmed, saying:

This is good news for all Canadian workers. These bills were nothing more than political attacks on unions and we are happy that the new government is moving quickly to correct these wrongs...This is a good step in re-establishing a sense of respect for unions, the democratic voice of working people.

Likewise, Paul Meinema, the national president of UFCW, said:

UFCW is pleased to see the government tabling Bill C-4. Our union campaigned vigorously against the Conservative Government`s Bill C-377 in the last parliament. The bill was undemocratic, and part of the Conservative government`s campaign against workers and workplace democracy. It was also a major invasion of the privacy of individual union members and it infringed on provincial jurisdiction over labour issues. Repealing Bill C-377 is positive for all Canadians as this bill would have been expensive for the government to implement and monitor.

The NDP will continue to push the government to restore and enhance collective bargaining rights as well as fair working conditions for all Canadians. The NDP will continue to pressure the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to enact anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation. Likewise, the NDP will push the government to repeal the previous government's dangerous legislation, just to confuse things also called Bill C-4. Larry Rousseau, in a 2013 article published by the The Huffington Post, called the previous Bill C-4 explosive, claiming the bill turned back the clock almost 50 years. A bill this backward, overtly ideological and explosive needs to be repealed, not just reviewed.

What value does a bill limiting a person's right to refuse unsafe work bring to the table? What exactly needs to be reviewed in a bill that does away with independent health and safety officers and that prevents federal public service workers from accessing the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunal over workplace discrimination and complaints? A review legitimizes this offensive legislation. It is time to just repeal it.

Having fought hard against these unnecessary and irresponsible bills, the NDP welcomes the changes tabled by the current government. The rights of working people have been under attack for far too long and the repeal of these bills is a good first step, but there is so much more to do for workers' rights and working conditions for Canadian men and women.

The NDP will push the government to restore good faith bargaining with our public sector workers. We will push the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and ensure that workers have fair and independent health and safety protections. We will push the government to adopt anti-scab and pay equity legislation, because all Canadian workers deserve fairness and respect.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question, but first and foremost for the job he has done for democracy in this country with Bill C-525.

Yes, some polls were conducted a few years ago about this issue, in 2013 Leger Marketing in Quebec and also by Nanos in 2011. What was the support for that kind of bill, that kind of democracy? It was 84% and 86%. How many members here have been elected with that score? No one. I could only dream of that. I would have been proud to have had that result. Je ne fais pas pitié. I got 51% and a majority of 19,000 votes.

On the other aspect, it is quite important to recognize that the first bill the Conservative government put forward was the clarity bill, the transparency and accountability bill. Throughout the campaign, the Liberals said they want transparency and all that stuff. What was their first bill? A direct attack on democracy, accountability, and also transparency. Shame on them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. I appreciate his passion for this.

I was very pleased to have Bill C-525 passed. It is not very often we see a private member's bill passed. It is something I thought was going to be a hallmark of change in this country when it came to establishing democracy and democratic rights.

I, too, have been a member of a union. I have also been part of collective bargaining on the other side, sitting across the table. I know exactly who the union leaders are looking out for in these negotiations. In not all cases is it in the best interests of the workers they claim to represent.

My questions for my hon. friend who gave this speech are based on the information we have on the polling information that was conducted. Is there any clear indication as to whether or not actual union workers support the notion of having a mandatory secret ballot?

Second, could the member edify the House on why he thinks, after nine years of Conservative government, a private member's bill was passed?

Third, why, all of a sudden, is one of the first things the Liberal government does is make a move to remove democracy and accountability in this House with one of its first bills?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

[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.

The House resumed from April 8 consideration of Bill C-525, Employees' Voting Rights Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-525, employees' voting rights act.

In bringing this bill forward, the member for Wetaskiwin has focused our attention on an important aspect of labour relations in Canada, and that is the process of governing the certification and decertification of unions.

The amendments our government proposed to the bill, after consulting with key stakeholders in committee, would help ensure that unions remain relevant in today's evolving workforce by legitimizing union certification and decertification in federally regulated workplaces.

As members know, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities had the chance to study the bill clause by clause, and of course, we heard from a number of stakeholders, union members, employers, and academics. I think we can all agree that given the fragility of our national economy, it is important that we get this right for employees who are under federal jurisdiction.

After hearing from Canadians who will be affected by the bill, we have proposed a number of common sense changes that strengthen its democratic value and fairness. We have carefully reviewed them, and I believe that the bill is, overall, the better for it.

It is simple. These changes improve the bill's fairness and democratic values while they maintain the principle of the bill that all federally regulated workers should have a democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot vote when deciding whether or not to unionize.

I argue regularly that this is not about the employer and the employee and the union. It is really about the relationships among the employees. This is a very personal decision, and I think they have the right to have that very personal decision reflected through a secret ballot process.

I think it is important to note that the NDP members put forward an amendment at report stage to gut the short title, employees' voting rights act. Why have they done this? They do not want Canadians and the workers they claim to represent to learn that the purpose of the bill is simply to give them the democratic right to a secret ballot vote. Again, we have talked about how important that is for employee relations. There is the union and the employer, but we have to remember the individual relations.

The facts are the facts. We strongly oppose the NDP amendment, because we believe that the short title is exactly what this bill represents, an act that delivers voting rights to employees in federally regulated workplaces.

I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the common sense changes we have proposed in this bill.

The employee's voting rights bill would give all employees the opportunity to have their say about certifying or decertifying a union. As things stand today for federally regulated employees, this is not always the case. Again, that is very much undemocratic. Instead, if at least 50% plus one of the employees in a bargaining unit sign membership cards, an application for union certification can be filed automatically. This means that a significant percentage of the people in the bargaining unit may find themselves in a union, whether they like it or not and without the opportunity to have had their views heard.

I fundamentally believe that all employees should have the democratic right to have a free and fair secret ballot when considering whether they want union representation in their workplace. I would like to ask my fellow members if this is too much for workers to ask. Are free and democratic elections not a foundation of Canadian society?

In my humble opinion, not only would it appear to be a reasonable request, it is a basic right. This is exactly what the employees' voting rights bill proposes. It proposes to eliminate automatic certification and would require that a secret ballot vote be held before certifying or decertifying a union.

For a union to be certified or decertified, the bill originally required a majority of employees in the bargaining unit to vote in favour. In cases where members did not vote, for one reason or another, their unused vote would essentially be considered a vote against a union.

We propose instead that the majority be based on the number of ballots actually cast, like in most elections. With this method, uncast ballots would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Canadians take a great deal of pride in the democratic process. The right to vote and the right to be heard go right to the very core of what it means to be Canadian. When we vote, whether it is at the federal, provincial, and municipal level, we do so by secret ballot.

A secret ballot means the freedom to vote the way we want to, to vote for what we think is best for ourselves, our families, and our country. This is the essence of what it means to live in a democratic society.

A decision as important as whether to form a union should represent the employees real intentions. The only way to guarantee that employees are free from pressure and that they can express their honest opinions the way they wish is to give them a free and fair secret ballot voting system. I think I can safely say that just like there are some Canadians who do not wish to reveal who they voted for in an election, there may be some workers who are not comfortable expressing their views on unionization publicly. Their reason for wanting privacy is their own and none of our business. It is as simple as that.

Subtle and sometimes not so subtle forces can come into play in these situations. The opinions and actions of colleagues and others have an effect on how someone might make a choice. If employees do not have the opportunity to vote freely for any reason, the results of a vote cannot truly reflect how the employees feel about union representation, and that is not fair. The concept is one that our government fully supports.

We also suggest lowering the minimum level of employee support required to trigger a certification and decertification from 45% to 40%. This number is much more in line with international conventions and the majority of provincial statutes. This approach is fair and will ultimately establish a level playing field for both supporters and opponents of the union.

I would like to take the opportunity to address the amendments proposed by the NDP during report stage. They propose to raise the card-check threshold required to trigger a vote for decertification from 40% to 50%. In short, the NDP is proposing to undermine one of the basic principles of the bill, which is to ensure that certification and decertification rules are the same so that supporters and opponents of unionization are placed on the same level playing field. These amendments would give a clear and unfair advantage to supporters, and although we are not surprised by this bias, the government simply cannot support such a blatantly unfair proposal by the NDP.

Our government has also proposed amending the date on which the new bill would come into effect. Our amendment states that this bill would come into force six months after receiving royal assent. This would give labour boards sufficient time to make the necessary changes to the regulations and procedures. I believe these amendments have resulted in a stronger bill, one that is more democratic and fair, and one that serves the needs of Canadian workers.

With these amendments, we are pleased to fully back the employees' voting rights act. I would like to encourage all of my hon. colleagues to support the bill, and in doing so they would be showing respect for hard-working Canadians and the principle of democracy. Again, to me, this is an issue about employer relationships and what happens in terms of their workplaces. Being able to have a secret ballot vote is absolutely fundamental.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for raising this issue and acting as a champion for the democratic rights of hard-working Canadians.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of all the members who have risen in the House to speak to this bill, whether they are in favour of it or not. It is another show of democracy.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-525, which would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, specifically with regard to the certification and decertification of the bargaining agent or, more simply put, the union.

This bill would amend the Canada Labour Code and other legislation to provide that the certification and decertification of the union as a bargaining agent under these acts must be achieved by a secret ballot vole-based majority.

However, that already happens. That already happens when the authorities, in other words the Canada Industrial Relations Board, call for it. It seems that is not enough this time. The government does not trust the members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Allow me to say a few words as someone who studied at Laval University in Quebec. To sit on the Canada Industrial Relations Board, one has to have certain qualifications, some experience in labour relations, in negotiating collective agreements, and in certification and decertification.

The secret ballot will be mandatory. This is a repudiation of the men and women who have spent most of their working lives maintaining good labour relations and ensuring that there is industrial peace in Canada. Does the government know what it means to have industrial peace in an industrialized country like ours? It means people who go to work, who represent all workers in Canada and ensure that the economy prospers. They co-operate with their employer and with the public service and Parliament. They ensure that we have healthy labour relations and a safe working environment where people are not afraid to get up and go to work in the morning.

I would like to point out that unfortunate actions are often the result of abuse. That is unacceptable in a modern society like ours.

This government seems to be saying that the system that was working before is no longer working. We have been hearing this for some time now. However, the government wants to act undemocratically and violate fundamental human rights and labour rights. As I was saying, a modern society that has respect for the role workers play in its economy must recognize collective bargaining rights and give democracy and protection of labour rights the weight they deserve.

I would remind members that the short title of this bill is the Employees' Voting Rights Act. These rights came out of the evolution of labour law and industrial relations in Canada. Generation after generation of workers fought to give the workforce a greater say and to create a balance of power, in response to employers and working conditions that were often abusive—and sometimes even deadly—as one of our colleagues pointed out recently. I repeat, this is unacceptable in a modern society.

You can bet that my colleagues and I will oppose this bill at report stage and at third reading.

This private member's bill is the sequel to Bill C-377, also a private member's bill. Its purpose is to severely undermine unions by fundamentally changing the certification and decertification process for unions under federal jurisdiction. I want to emphasize that we are talking about unions under federal jurisdiction.

That is where the Canada Labour Code applies. The CLC has been modernized and updated by generations of legislators. This bill goes against that tradition. It attacks a basic human right, the right to freedom of association and expression as embodied by unions. They are the ones who choose it.

This bill will make it harder for workers to unionize and will probably result in more unions being decertified. It will be easier to shut a union down than to start one up. It does not work, it is not fair, it is unacceptable, it is undemocratic, and above all, it is disrespectful.

This Conservative government is in power even though 60% of Canadians voted against it, and the Conservatives govern in what is sometimes a shameful and insolent manner. We can see that today with Bill C-525. It is highly unusual to use a private member's bill to address an issue as important to the exercise of democratic rights as this one.

At present, when a group of employees wants to be represented by a union and decides to form its own union or join an existing union, this union must file an application for certification with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. If the application meets the requirements of the Canada Labour Code, which is rather tedious, complex and demanding, and 50% of the members have signed a card indicating that they want to belong to the union, the union is automatically certified after the cards are checked.

It does not just happen. It takes a lot of hard work and discussions between the group of workers and the bargaining agent, who together decide to create a unit to improve the chances that these workers will have a healthier environment and can enter into agreements with their boss. Collective bargaining allows workers to represent a workforce that contributes to the prosperity of our country. It is a fundamental right in our modern society.

In many workplaces where there is a union, there are lots of projects to improve working conditions, whether in the automotive sector or the textile sector of the past. I say “textile sector of the past” because free trade agreements have unfortunately practically destroyed Canada's textile industry. However, it was because of the economic circumstances, and not because of unions. It is up to the government to put in place laws and infrastructure that allow companies to grow and develop and that encourage economic prosperity.

Thanks to the hard work of the NDP, particularly that of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the member for Newton—North Delta, we managed to get the Conservatives to back down and listen to reason on the most harmful part of this bill. They agreed to amend the worst parts of the bill in committee. At first, the rules put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin stated that anyone who did not participate in the certification vote would be counted as a vote against the creation of the union. However, if it were a question of decertification, anyone absent would be counted as a vote in favour of decertification. That was a brazen and appalling abuse.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak briefly to Bill C-525.

I have to say that if the mover of the private member's bill believes that this is so important and is worthwhile, then why does the government not introduce legislation to do what is clearly trying to be done through the backdoor? It is because the government does not have the courage to take its own action and clearly stand up to introduce legislation if it wants to see changes.

Previously we had Bill C-377. Now we have Bill C-525. If government members have some concerns and think that changes need to happen, they should do it the proper way and introduce legislation as a government.

I am happy to have a chance to speak to a bill that according to the government's sponsors is to help empower workers.

Specifically, Bill C-525 would amend 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 vote-based majority through a secret ballot.

Members will forgive my apprehension, but as this bill does come on the heels of the government's last union-busting bill, Bill C-377, I have to wonder again about the real motivations behind it.

Bill C-525 would affect more than 1.2 million employees working as public servants or for an employer under federal jurisdiction. This would include everyone from my own staff to their own staff to the local postmaster to the teller at my local bank or credit union. This means we need to ensure that we get this right, because the bill would impact on real people every day.

The Conservatives have made it clear from the beginning of their term that they are prepared to smash unions at all costs, even when the cost would hurt middle-class workers. Liberals see this as unacceptable. We will be casting our votes in favour of middle-class workers and their families and in favour of fairness and full consultation. If the Conservatives want to change the Labour Code or anything in it, then they should sit down with the partners and discuss those things and make the changes.

My first concern with Bill C-525 is that it proposes to fundamentally change how a union can be formed and dissolved in the federal jurisdiction, yet the evidence shows there is no need, and the major stakeholders have neither asked for this change nor even agreed with it.

Despite the fact that the federal labour relations system is respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades for amending the Labour Code, the bill clearly ignores all the good work that has been done over the years through discussions between labour and the employer as to what changes need to be made. It seems Bill C-525 is again rooted in ideology rather than in sound policy based upon need.

There has been no proven need for the legislation. Those supporting the bill suggest that the rationale for Bill C-525 was a mountain of complaints regarding union coercion of workers. However, according to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have only been two founded complaints against unions out of 4,000 decisions in 10 years, so all of this is about just two serious complaints. Even the chairperson of CIRB stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem”.

For labour relations legislation to be effective, it must be developed and implemented by the stakeholders through pre-legislative consultation based upon evidence, not by backdoor government manoeuvring of private members' bills that are, again, based solely upon ideology. This is not the first time we have seen bills that are clearly based upon the ideology of the Conservatives rather than upon substance or science.

Bill C-525 ignores long-established processes and like its sister legislation, Bill C-377, would impose radical changes that are not supported by the stakeholders or by the facts. The result of the legislation would not be labour harmony or efficiency; it would be an upsetting of the balance and stability in labour relations in Canada. This may be what the government is attempting to spark, but it is not in the best interests of employers, workers, or the Canadian economy in the long term.

However, I am not here just to poke holes today. In fact, as someone who has a strong union base in my own constituency, I have seen the positive contributions made to my communities by organized labour over many years. Indeed, this kind of social benevolence is something that has long underscored the labour movement in Canada, and those of us in the Liberal caucus continue to support these middle-class workers and their families very proudly.

Kicking labour around is tantamount to an attack on our communities, and the government should be ashamed of the approach it is taking. Bill C-377 was bad enough, and now Bill C-525 has appeared on the scene. When will it stop?

The bill is neither about union democracy, nor balanced labour relations. Bill C-525 fundamentally changes the way that workers can unionize, without any consultation or support of the stakeholders, and based on zero evidence for its need.

Rather than this kind of knee-jerk approach, the Liberal Party has called for a certification process that, one, allows workers to make free and informed decisions about whether they want to join a union or not, and, two, that has been created through a fair and balanced consensus tripartite process that is based on fact, whereby the changes to be made come from the stakeholders themselves.

Bill C-525 is yet another example of the Conservative government abusing the private members' bill process as backdoor government legislation to promote its ideology, not the views and wishes of the stakeholders or their constituents that would be affected or when the facts at hand show it is not needed.

What are the Conservatives so afraid of? When they tried this very same thing with Bill C-377, their own senators admonished them for doing it. They stymie debate, curtail committee study, and act like their fingerprints are not all over the document.

For example, the human resources committee only studied this for two and a half hours, and almost every witness, including government witnesses, spoke out against the bill. Somehow it sounds a bit like Bill C-23. Specifically, the witnesses that were heard expressed concern over the bill.

George Smith, a labour relations expert, said:

...we are dealing with a private member's bill to amend a significant section of the Canada Labour Code without any view of how this change will impact overall labour relations policy in the federal sector, without any of the necessary due process and public consultation to examine the intended and unintended consequences to such amendments.

Dick Heinen, executive director, Christian Labour Association of Canada, a union that is often viewed as employer friendly, said this about the current card-check system, “It has worked, and I don't know what the problem is. I don't know why we need to change that”.

Elizabeth MacPherson, chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with respect to the effectiveness of the current card-check system, said, “In our opinion, it is working well. With the board having the discretion to decide when a vote must be held, it works”. Why do we need to change it? Why is the government refusing to listen? Is it anything else but clear ideology?

Conservative abuse of this process has been so terrible in the past that the Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert resigned from the caucus in disgust. I see that they have learned nothing from the past.

It has already been said that power over a person's wallet is power over their will. That is what Bill C-525 is really all about. As just one example, research has clearly shown that moving from a card-check-based system to a mandatory vote system reduces unionization rates. This is the true motivation behind the bill. Bill C-525 proposes to abolish the card-check model in favour of a mandatory representation vote in all certification applications. It is no more complex than that.

Labour unions have been defenders of employee rights, and they have a long-standing track record of helping our communities in many ways. Of course, unions are not perfect, and there have been many occasions when I have differed with them. However, I do believe in due process. Bill C-525, like its sister bill, Bill C-377, is a partisan attack on middle-class workers and their families. It is wrong, and as the Liberal industry critic, I will be voting for workers and against this sneaky backdoor legislation.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have been happy to take a few extra minutes to answer questions about my speech on Bill C-525.

I began my speech by talking about a philosophical approach to this bill. I will continue on the subject of the imbalance the government is creating in the labour market.

This imbalance began 30-some years ago. Rather than valuing individual and collective efforts and work, successive Liberal and Conservative governments preferred to disparage the contribution made by members of a large part of our society. These people work for public or private employers, and some are even self-employed. In exchange for wages, they offer their talents, their knowledge, and especially their pride in doing their work and contributing to our society.

Unfortunately, this key contribution to our society is acknowledged less and less. The Conservative government is not helping the situation by supporting this Trojan horse private member's bill, which allows the government to avoid making the significant changes that need to be made.

Luckily, common sense seems to have prevailed to some extent in committee. Amendments were made to this deplorable bill, so it has improved somewhat. However, in addition to making technical changes and changing the rules, this bill would significantly shift the way society views the contributions that workers make to society. Their contributions will become less and less important. Workers are basically considered disposable if they cannot meet the requirements set by a small group of people in our society who hold a great deal of power in their hands.

We must defeat this bill so that we can maintain the relative balance that still exists and that the government, unfortunately, does not seem to be aware of. This bill serves as a major warning, and members must not miss the vote. Government members need to listen to reason and help us defeat this bill.

The House resumed from March 26 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), as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague for his question. I have always admired the work he has done in the House, and I hear glorious accolades for him from his constituents as well.

From my teaching perspective, I think 13 years to get to this point is really slow. However, we got here. If we were in continuous progress, we are at the halfway mark, but we still have a long way to go.

I actually was flabbergasted that we did not have this done a long time ago. Since I have been a parliamentarian, I have seen the government with a bill it wants to railroad through the House, as it did with Bill C-525, which was a union-busting bill, so to speak. It actually managed to ram that through with only about two and half hours of witness testimony and an hour of clause-by-clause. It then changed the orders so as to have it debated last night so it could be pushed through.

It is really about will. I am glad to see that the Conservatives have that will today to debate this, but it is long overdue. Even if it is long overdue, I am glad that it has reached this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and speak to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.

Hearing long titles like this one, we are often left wondering what the bill is really about. This legislation is a culmination of a number of attempts to address safety for workers in offshore situations.

Most Canadians who work on land just take the right to refuse unsafe work for granted, but we should not, because workers fought for the right to refuse unsafe work for many years. We have the labour movement to thank for its advocacy in this area.

As we have learned more about occupational health and safety, we have learned that it is a shared responsibility, that employees have to be integrally involved in developing policies and practices, and that enforcement has to be there as well. We are pleased that this legislation would address those aspects and would give offshore workers the right to refuse unsafe work.

This legislation is a result of co-operation and collaboration between partners, and by that I mean the Atlantic provinces and the labour movement. Labour movements in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia worked closely together to make sure protective regimes would be put in place for offshore workers in the oil and gas industry. It is mind-boggling that such a regime did not exist already, because a worker is a worker. If workers are covered when their feet are planted on the ground, then why would workers in offshore situations not be covered?

We have had a number of tragic disasters, and those disasters have made us as a society and at different levels of government look at where our legislative framework is to protect those who go to work.

Offshore workers are like workers everywhere else. They get up in the morning, some in the evening, and they go to work to make a living. There is every expectation on the part of those workers and the families they leave at home that they will return home safely. Once this legislation is enacted, our offshore workers will have the right to refuse unsafe work, and I am pleased about that.

This legislation reminds me of Bill C-525, the legislation we were debating last night. I can see direct links between the two bills. In Bill C-525 we see a not-so-secretive attack on organized labour and on workers' ability to organize.

It has taken workers in the offshore industry many years to get rights that other people already have. Having been a teacher for most of my life, I know how hard it was to get an occupational health and safety framework implemented in the school system for teachers as well.

I am also reminded that there is often a disdain by my colleagues across the way for working people who have chosen to be part of a collective called a union. However, I am very proud of the achievements of the union movement.

Looking back to the 19th century, we can see the reason that unions were founded. It was to provide some balance because workers' lives were in danger. Hands were being caught in machinery, and amputated. Young children were being sent into the mines and terrible accidents were occurring. People were being forced to work incredibly long hours. It was at that time, out of desperation, that workers decided that singly they could not bring about change. If they wanted to bring about meaningful change, they had to hold hands and become a collective.

That kind of advocacy for the rights of workers, for a right to a decent living, for the right to work in safe workplaces and ensure the maximum safety, are all things that the union movement is still advocating for today. It is not just for the unions themselves, but for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would want each and every worker in Canada to have occupational health and safety protection and the right to refuse unsafe work. If we do not have that, we are left in a very vulnerable position.

When we look at the legislation, the overall responsibility to carry out and implement a lot of it is put in the hands of the operator. Therefore, I was pleased to hear that the government had paid some attention, as I had hoped, to recommendation 29 of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador public inquiry into offshore helicopter safety, which was conducted by the Hon. Robert Wells.

This inquiry spent a lot of time listening to experts, and as much as I know that my colleagues across the way have an allergy to data, science, informed decisions, and listening to experts, I was quite impressed by the recommendation put forward by Hon. Wells. It brought home to me that we are once again passing a piece of legislation that is a step in the right direction and will enshrine the right to refuse unsafe work. However, at the same time, we are not writing legislation for yesterday. We should be writing legislation that is current for today, tomorrow, and the next few years.

The Hon. Robert Wells put forward what I would say are fairly reasonable options: the best case scenario and the one that would be acceptable if the best case scenario is not taken up by government.

In June 2010, the Hon. Robert Wells wrote:

I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report.

Recommendation 29 demanded that a new independent and stand-alone safety regulator be established to regulate safety in the CNL offshore. That seems fairly clear. Then, Justice Wells, because he knows what parliamentarians can be like, wanted to give people a choice and not an ultimatum. It was not this or nothing.

He came up with a second option. The alternative option was that the government create a separate autonomous safety division of C-NLOPB, with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters. It was also to establish an advisory board composed of mature—that is often questionable—and experienced persons, who are fully representative of the community and unconnected with the oil industry. He also recommended ensuring that the safety division would have the mandate and ability to engage expert advisors, either on staff or as consultants, to assist it in its regulatory tasks.

The report further explains that the safety regulator should be separate and independent from all other components of offshore regulation and should stand alone, with safety being its only regulatory task. As I said, with a government that has an allergy to data, science, and informed decision-making, this legislation fails to meet either of those standards set out in that report. It is a report, by the way, that was not written overnight. It was well researched. As I said earlier, it is a shame that it was not included in the legislation.

We are supporting this piece of legislation because it is moving in the right direction. However, once again, I am going to make a plea to my colleagues across the way that they amend this legislation, even now, and maybe take the time so that it has some life beyond, rather than providing just the absolute minimum. I will say, though, that this is better than nothing.

We as the NDP are very committed to saying that when we form government we will continue to work with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Even before we form government, we are committed to further strengthening worker health and safety by working towards the creation of an independent, stand-alone safety regulator. That is the right thing to do.

I have talked about the government having an allergy to data and not listening to the experts. I live in the beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta. Unfortunately for us, in my riding we have had a very high number of homicides, and some have really touched members in my community.

Once again, when we look at the numbers and see how under-policed we are compared to ridings that surround us, in talking about facts and science it makes sense that we need that extra policing on our streets right now. I have a growing number of constituents who are becoming very disillusioned. They are asking how much more information, facts, and experience they have to share with the decision-makers for them to realize that we have a community that needs support and additional policing.

When we are talking about offshore on the east coast, it also brings home to me that we have this beautiful geography. We are a country that spans, not from coast to coast, but from coast to coast to coast. On the west coast we are just as concerned about our safety offshore as we are about worker safety on land. We are also very concerned about our environment and the impact of offshore exploration on the environment. We have to make sure that we have rigorous environmental protections in place.

Being a port city, Vancouver recently experienced a work stoppage for almost a month, which had quite an impact on the community. I had businessman after businessman coming to tell me about the impact.

I also met with the truckers, who were telling me about the impact on them with the terrific wait periods that existed. Compared to 2005, when they could do 5 runs, now they can do maybe two; if they were lucky, they could do three runs. They told me how their income level had gone down but their expenses had gone way up.

Just as it has taken the federal government so long to act on this piece of legislation, in a similar way we saw the federal government being remiss in not facilitating negotiations long before the strike started. Every party realized what the issues were, and it was the government that could have facilitated a much earlier resolution. It could have negotiated a settlement to ensure we did not have the economic impacts on both the business community, the transloading companies, and the drivers and their families.

Earlier today I heard about the wheat that is backlogged. In my riding, we ran out of storage space. Now I am very concerned for the transloading companies that move lentils, chickpeas, and all legumes, as well as all the wheat. They are going to be facing some extraordinary challenges in the near future.

I do want to congratulate the parties, the truckers, the transloading companies, and the Port, for the resolution to the strike that would never have taken place if the government had played an active role at the beginning. Whether it is about health and safety issues, other working conditions, or the ability to make a decent living and feed their families, workers have found there is power in working together and being part of a collective.

We pass bills that go into law, but unless there is enforcement, they remain words on paper. My plea to my colleagues across the way is to ensure that with the moves we have made in the right direction for worker safety in the offshore industry, especially with the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord, that we at least ensure we have implementation measures in place that are not just “we are asking you to”. For implementation to happen, there has to be real enforcement, and real enforcement has to have real consequences for those who do not ensure that the safety measures are in place.

Being a teacher, an important part of occupational health and safety is education. That is the education of workers. No occupational health and safety culture is complete without employers and workers receiving a thorough education and both of them working collaboratively. However, the power ultimately lies in the hands of the employer to ensure those conditions. All the worker has is the right to refuse unsafe work.

The enforcement and education are critical components of any successful occupational health and safety program. Having worked with a very successful one in B.C., I know that empowering the educational component can be successful.

I am certainly hoping that the operators who are being charged with these responsibilities will develop an educational program and also look at real enforcement.

Motions in amendment

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am not particularly pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-525, but it is an honour to do so.

I want to start by paying tribute to the wonderful work done by my three colleagues: the member for Newton—North Delta, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. They put in a valiant effort under some particularly unfavourable conditions.

Fortunately, though, this out-of-touch bill was so flawed that all of the members of the committee had to listen to reason, make some logical changes and eliminate some obvious absurdities.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of many people who would have liked to speak to this bill. I will try to use my time wisely tonight to share with the House both my point of view and that of a union that is close to my heart. I am fortunate to be the NDP deputy critic for public safety. It being such a large file, one that includes police services, the RCMP and federal penitentiaries, I have the opportunity to meet exceptional people who work day in and day out to keep us safe. I salute them.

I salute the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, the UCCO-SACC, which does outstanding work every day to protect us and to make our communities, our cities and our towns safe. Their work is incredibly important for public safety because they ensure that we are safe and that those detained in our prisons are as well. These people put their lives on the line every day. I work closely with them to ensure that their voices are heard in Parliament and that we understand what they face on a daily basis.

Until recently, there were three federal penitentiaries in my riding of Laval: the Leclerc Institution, the Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre. Unfortunately, as a result of a Conservative government decision, the Leclerc Institution was shut down last year. We still do not understand why, though, because there was a need for it, especially in light of the implications of Bill C-10, the omnibus bill implemented by that same Conservative government.

These people are incredible workers. I worked closely with Diderot at the Leclerc Institution, who is now at the Federal Training Centre. I often work with Michel and Manon, the union representatives at the Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre. I know that they work hard to keep us safe. A lot happens inside our prisons that goes unmentioned. No one talks about double-bunking, which puts the work and lives of our correctional officers in danger every day. No one talks about workers' safety, the new workload resulting from the implementation of Bill C-10, the restrictive measures or the budget cuts in our federal penitentiaries. That affects them greatly.

I would like to point out that “federal penitentiaries” means “federal employees”. Bill C-525 affects them directly. I would like to quote their position on Bill C-525:

Bill C-525: an attack on union democracy. Bill C-525 is the [Conservative] government's attack on the very existence of unions in job sectors governed by the Canada Labour Code, including the federal public service, which governs the job rules for 800,000 Canadian workers. Dressed up as a way to increase union democracy by the party that brought us robocalls, voter suppression, election-expense violations and the Senate scandal, the bill in fact does exactly the opposite.

I could not agree more with the UCCO-SACC. They go on to say:

[The] Conservative MP [for] Wetaskiwin introduced the so-called Employee’s Voting Rights Act as a private member’s bill...

Important to note is the fact that private member’s bills are not subject to constitutional verification by Justice department lawyers—as are government bills—to see if they conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is no doubt one reason why the [Conservative] government prefers to introduce oppressive legislation of this sort via private member’s bills.

In the case of Bill C-525, [the Conservative government] is attacking our fundamental right of association by making certification of new unions much more difficult, and conversely, the decertification of existing unions much easier.

The bill does so by adding another, unnecessary, step to the tried-and-true method of the card-check system, which opens the process up to employer intimidation. The government’s anti-democratic habits come to the fore in this part of Bill C-525. It will only require a minority of members (45%) to initiate a decertification vote overseen by the Canada Labour Board, which, you will recall from a previous tract, will now be politicized under Bill C-4.

Incredibly, Bill C-525 flies in the face of basic democratic principles by requiring that 50% plus one of all employees [and I would like to add that the principle of 50% plus one forms the very foundation of our society in our electoral system], not just those who participate in the ballot, vote in favour of the union. In other words, those who choose not to vote, or who are unable to vote, would be counted as votes against the union in certification or decertification votes.

It is incredible to think that a piece of legislation would determine the meaning of the votes of people who do not vote or who cannot be present to vote for some reason or another. In a federal, provincial or municipal election, when someone does not vote, it does not mean that he or she is voting for someone; it simply means that he or she did not vote. This decision is appalling. My quote continues:

Those who are ill, vacationing or have family emergencies may be in favour of having a union, but will be considered as No votes.

This legislation is only one part of a series of attacks by the [Conservative] government intended to weaken the labour movement and the ability of workers to organize themselves in their workplace. The process of signing membership cards is the best way to protect workers from the pressure tactics of some employers. To impose a vote is to open the door to threats and intimidation. Studies have demonstrated that the government’s proposed process leads to a 10% to 20% decrease in union membership where it has been adopted.

I would like to thank all UCCO-SACC members across Canada. I would especially like to thank the Laval members, whom I know very well: union representatives Manon and Michel. They are doing an incredible job of standing up for workers' rights and the safety of their workplace.

All three of us talked about this at length. I know that they strongly oppose this bill. I am proud to be their voice in the House today. It is incredible to think that a government like the one opposite, which constantly says it wants to protect our communities, is not helping the workers in federal penitentiaries. That is ridiculous.

I am going to talk about more than just the fact that this is going to affect conditions for unions in federal detention centres. Bill C-525 touches on other aspects. I would like to cite some statistics for my colleagues opposite that might change their minds. Perhaps they will vote against Bill C-525.

Better wages negotiated by unions inject approximately $786 million into the Canadian economy every week. That is a lot of money. If we have so much money pouring into the economy, it is because of workers who got together and decided to form a union. I would like to thank them today.

Furthermore, as a woman, I am proud to say that unionized women make $6.65 more per hour than non-unionized women. That is huge.

I know that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wanted to talk about the World Bank, but unfortunately did not have the time to do so in his speech. Therefore, in closing, I will talk briefly about the World Bank and its views on unions.

The World Bank has pointed out the positive role unions play in domestic economies. In a 2002 document based on more than 1,000 studies of the impact of unions on domestic economies, the World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and a quicker response to economic downturns.

We should all vote against Bill C-525, which is clearly an insult to workers' rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 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).

There are a number of reasons why I am opposed to it. I fundamentally disagree with the thrust of the bill. I am also opposed to the process that has been used here.

Let us look at what has been happening here this evening. The government side has had no speakers lined up to speak on this bill. If the government members believe in this bill and are so fundamentally supportive of it, surely they should have had the pride and been able to stand up and say whatever they have to say about this legislation.

There are no government members lined up to speak, and at this very critical stage, there is no debate. The opposition is left to speak on this very important issue.

Once again, it adds to the kind of atmosphere that exists here, that the government believes that since it has a majority, it is going to get its way. It does not have to have members debate the opposition or even pay attention, to see if, through debate, the opposition might make us see a different point of view.

This is a private member's bill that makes fundamental changes to the Canada Labour Code. That is not the intention or the purpose of private members' bills. We do not bring about such fundamental changes. However, this is an example of a government that has an agenda and implements its agenda through private members' business. We have seen this over and over again.

Let us take a look at the process. My colleague across the way who brought this private member's bill forward, which is his right, only appeared for half an hour at committee, and after he had finished speaking for his half hour, he did not even wait to hear the witnesses who had been called to speak on this bill. After his half hour, he left.

When he was asked about consultation, his answer was that he had consulted with his constituents. That was a great idea; we should consult with our constituents. However, we have to note that he did not consult with a single major union, and not the Canada Industrial Relations Board, nor the Canadian Bankers Association, amongst hundreds of others that I could mention.

The member's explanation for not consulting any of the stakeholders was, and I am going to quote it because if I paraphrase nobody is going to believe that this is real: “They've made no effort to consult me”.

Well, how would all those stakeholders have known what this member was working on for a private member's bill? Surely when a member is working on a private member's bill, it behooves the member to go out and do some of that consultation, if not at that time then at a different time.

There has also been a sort of urgency from the government to railroad this piece of legislation through this House. I do not see what the hurry was. I have sat on a number of different committees where we have looked at legislation, heard a number of witnesses, and had a lot of time to debate and go through the legislation, clause by clause.

Let us take a look at the process that was used for this bill. There was half an hour for the member who moved the bill to come to talk to us, and two and a half hours, in total, for witnesses. The Speaker should be outraged to find that the NDP could only call three witnesses. We had hundreds of others chomping at the bit, wanting to present their perspective. That was not a thorough way to look at a bill.

Then, after the total of three hours, there was one additional hour to do all the clause-by-clause. When we look at it, this makes a mockery of the legislative process.

Then, after a total of three hours, there was one additional hour to do all the clause-by-clause. When we look at it, this makes a mockery of the legislative process. This makes a mockery of us as parliamentarians who are being very deliberative and listening to the points of view from expert witnesses from all sides and also from listening from the points that we have to make. We have a system that was actually working. I have not heard any petitions. I did not get people rushing into my riding office saying this bill is necessary or our economic system is about to collapse.

The bill will actually accelerate the race to the bottom. It is another example of the government going after decent-paying jobs in this country. People who have decent-paying jobs actually pay taxes. The government uses those taxes to provide services. Yet, once again, instead of listening to experts and people who actually work in the field, instead of looking at the testimony from the department and from the Labour Relations Board that showed the system is working and is not broken—because we know the Conservatives have an allergy to data and to making decisions based on real information—the government is trying to push this legislation through at rapid speed.

Here is a quote from FETCO, the Federally Regulated Employers–Transportation and Communications branch: “FETCO has serious concerns regarding the use of Private Members’ bills to amend the Canada Labour Code”.

It went on to say that the code we have right now, as set out by Parliament, is “to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative 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”.

Of course, we have a government that has an ideology that is not quite built to that. FETCO also talks about how these rules are there and that they exist to provide stability and are constructive, and that they actually act as barriers to the economic impact of conflicts that could arise.

Over the years, this preamble has been adhered to by governments of all stripes, both the Conservatives and my friends over there, the Liberals. However, the government, without any real evidence, has decided that it needs to break the Labour Code.

Mr. George Smith talks about the amazing work done by Andrew Sims who chaired the last series of comprehensive changes. By the way, for full disclosure, he is no relative at all. I am not related to Mr. Sims. His panel did an absolutely amazing job. In the words of Andrew Sims, “We want legislation that is sound, enactable, and lasting”.

Instead, what we have here is a government that is going piecemeal at the Labour Code. The Labour Code and industrial relations are very complex and are made up of many components that all fit together. When a private member's bill is used to insert and dissect parts out of the Labour Code, it opens the door for greater instability in our economy.

I am absolutely upset, putting it mildly, that the government has had such lack of process but not only that; it has refused to engage in meaningful debate in the House, which is very disrespectful. On top of that, Conservatives are really out to get at people who are making decent wages in this country and that is quite shameful.

I am proud to be speaking in opposition to the bill.

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

My colleague was not surprised, Mr. Speaker.

Canadians know that the current government has no respect for due process or evidence-based legislation. Just like the unfair elections act, Bill C-525 is another example of this. We are debating a bill that has no evidence to support it, while anyone and everyone who has a stake in labour relations is saying this is a horrible way to make labour laws in this country.

I believe that for labour laws to work in the interests of both the employees and the employers, they need to be fair and balanced. They also need to be legitimized through a consultative and consensus-based process with stakeholders that is based on real evidence.

From Bill C-377 last year to the changes to the definition of “danger” in last fall's omnibus bill and now with Bill C-525, the government has been using every opportunity and means to pass labour laws that are based on ideology instead of evidence through backdoor means instead of open, transparent, and consultative ones.

The sponsor of this bill, my colleague from Wetaskiwin, has defended the need for this bill on a mountain of complaints regarding union coercion of workers during union certification campaigns.

In his second reading speech he said:

When we hear one person complain about the actions of union organizers, that can be dismissed as a one-off situation. However when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

In making a statement like that, especially as a reason to change the fundamental right of how workers can organize, one had better be able to back that statement up with fact.

I think many in this chamber would be surprised, even shocked, to know that when the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared at committee during a study of the bill, she dropped a bombshell: she said that out of the 4,000 decisions that were rendered by that board, there were only two founded complaints of unfair labour practices by unions in the last 10 years. In fact, she said that there were more founded complaints against employers than against unions. In the 4,000 decisions over 10 years, covering 1.25 million workers, there were only two founded complaints.

Although the government said that this is about protecting the rights of workers, we have not heard from one single worker who supports this bill out of the 1.25 million Canadians who are affected. There has not been a phone call, an email, a petition, or a request from a worker or a working group to appear before our committee to say how they had been wronged because of the current legislation, not a single one.

The question that has to be asked and answered is this: why make a fundamental change to the way workers can organize into a union and change the certification process from a card check to a mandatory vote? Maybe it is because research has proven that the effect of such a move would be to lower unionization rates, something the Conservative Party wants implicitly.

I would like to finally talk about the process or, more to the point, the abuse of due process, of which this bill is a perfect example. Although this bill would fundamentally change how workers can organize, only two committee meetings took place to study this; only two meetings. There were two and a half hours of witness testimony, but in those two and a half hours members heard witness after witness, from both labour and employer groups, saying that using private members' bills to make substantial labour legislation changes was not only wrong but would end up hurting labour relations in the long run.

Hassan Yussuff, secretary-treasurer of the CLC, stated:

Amendments should not be made through private members' bills. They should be made with concerted, pre-legislative consultation that engages employers, unions, and government.

How about the other side, FETCO? John Farrell, executive director of the largest federal employer group, stated:

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.

That is two very different sides of the fence both saying the same thing, in very powerful statements.

Mr. George Smith, a labour relations expert and practitioner his entire life, stated:

...we are dealing with a private member's bill to amend a significant section of the Canada Labour Code without any view of how this change will impact overall labour relations policy in the federal sector, without any of the necessary due process and public consultation to examine the intended and unintended consequences to such amendments.

Labour law systems are very complex, and the ones that work well are based on a delicate balance that must be respected if and when reforms are made to them. Shortsighted labour reforms driven by ideology rather than evidence and made without a legitimate consultative process are both disruptive and unsustainable.

I and my party may not always agree with labour on everything, but I believe past Liberal governments have used balanced processes and extensive consultation to make labour reforms. This included retaining Andrew Sims and Professor Harry Arthurs to review Part II and Part III of the Canada Labour Code, as well as conducting extensive consultation with public sector unions prior to the introduction of the Public Service Modernization Act in 2003.

Mr. Sims, in his report, said that if labour laws were to be changed, number one, they should be changed because there was a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public interest, or number two, it should be done on a consensus basis. I ask members of the House whether they believe Bill C-525 meets these criteria or is based on the principles that employers and unions currently respect and agree upon.

Bill C-525 would impact thousands of employers and approximately 1.25 million employees in the federal jurisdiction, people who have a right to ensure we as politicians respect principles inherent in creating fair and balanced labour relation laws for them and their employers. I believe it is incumbent on any government, if it plans to make major labour law reforms, that this process be done with a consultative, up-front approach. I and my party will continue to oppose labour legislation that does not meet this standard. That is why I am proud to say my party will not be supporting this bill.

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

moved:

Motions No. 1

That Bill C-525 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motions No. 2

That Bill C-525, in Clause 4, be amended

(a) by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

“employee who claims to represent at least 50%”

(b) by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:

“50% of the employees in the bargaining unit”

Motions No. 3

That Bill C-525, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 2 with the following:

“the application, at least 50% of the employees”

Motions No. 4

That Bill C-525, in Clause 8, be amended

(a) by replacing line 17 on page 4 with the following:

“sent at least 50% of the employees in the”

(b) by replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:

“any person claiming to represent at least 50% of”

(c) by replacing line 42 on page 4 with the following:

“50% of the employees in the bargaining unit no”

Motions No. 5

That Bill C-525, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 6 with the following:

“least 50% of the employees in the bargaining”

Motions No. 6

That Bill C-525, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 6 with the following:

“subsection 94(1), at least 50% of the employees”

Mr. Speaker, I want to start this debate with a quotation from Mr. Chris Riddell, who in 2001 published an article in the Canadian Journal of Economics entitled “Union Suppression and Certification Success”. He wrote:

Clearly, if a government is opposed to unionization it can accomplish such an agenda through instituting compulsory elections.

That is exactly what the right-wing, ideological, anti-worker, anti-union current government is trying to do with Bill C-525. Bill C-525 would impose a secret ballot every time workers wanted to organize to defend their rights and improve their working and living conditions in general.

We have a card-check system that is simple, works well for the workers, and creates no problems at all.

I will demonstrate to members here tonight that the changes brought forward by the member would create an environment in which it would be much more difficult to institute or create new unions. As such, it would lower living and working conditions for a lot of Canadians. It is sad, because I think the bill would put us much closer to an American model than a Canadian model, which is based on sharing and fairness.

Thanks to pressure by people and workers across the country and strong opposition by the NDP, we managed to get rid of all the ludicrous, absolutely absurd things in Bill C-525.

At first, this bill was so anti-union that people who abstained from voting on whether or not they wanted to have a union at their workplace would be deemed to have voted against forming a union. When it came to dismantling the union, then it was the opposite.

The ideological bias was so inflated that the government felt that those who abstained from voting were voting in favour of dismantling the union. Fortunately, the NDP managed to get the government to listen to reason and the government backed down. We got the government to back down and return to a voting system, which we are not entirely sure is necessary, because it opens the door to shady practices by the employer, including bullying, threats and blackmail.

At least the votes that will be counted are the ones in the box and not the ones of the people who stayed home. The system is like what we do for federal and provincial elections, according to the rules that govern our election to the House.

We avoided catastrophe, but the fact remains that this bill goes against the NDP's principles and values. The NDP wants to help people organize and improve their working conditions, not put up obstacles.

Just now, when I was speaking in English, I said that this bill would put us much closer to an American model and is a departure from the fair and equitable society that has been the trademark of Canada and Quebec for years.

I would like to quote a very interesting document from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux:

Why did the provincial and federal legislators provide in their respective labour codes that the choice of belonging to a union would be determined by signing a membership card instead of by secret ballot? [It is simple.] To avoid having employers interfere by intimidating their employees into giving up on forming a union.

The tools available to the two opposing parties can have a huge impact on the result of a vote by secret ballot. How can a union that is just being formed claim to have tools that are just as effective in winning the vote as those of an employer or a group of employees supported by the employer?

...What is more, will these employees be able to campaign at the workplace without the risk of sanctions being imposed, when those who are anti-union will clearly benefit from the support or at least the supportive tolerance of the employer?

In short, a real pre-vote campaign cannot be run on a level playing field, and its results will not truly represent the individual choice of each employee involved.

I will stop quoting there and say that signing a card is an important gesture. By so doing, workers confirm that they belong to an organization and that they want to be represented by that organization, which will negotiate a contract that will ensure that their rights will be respected and their working conditions will improve. It is a gesture that is just as meaningful and legitimate as a vote by secret ballot.

We are beginning to see here how obstacles can be put in the way of employees who, with good reason, want to organize to negotiate a collective agreement.

It is interesting to read in the CSN document the opinions of those involved on the issue of an employer's potential interference in the certification process.

I would like to read a quote from the May 16, 2005, edition of Le Devoir. Louis Morin, a former Labour Court judge and the former president of the Quebec labour relations commission, stated:

At no time in my career have I ever met a single employer who was happy to hear that a union was being formed. Sometimes they had very strong reactions to this news. Is it more democratic for workers to vote against unionization after the employer has threatened them with the closure of the business, the loss of their rights and so on than for them to have signed a membership card even if they were persistently asked to do so?

This is someone with experience, the former head of the Quebec labour relations commission, who is saying that the card system works well. That is why the NDP believes that we should maintain the existing system. It works well and allows Canada to have a much higher rate of unionization than the United States.

We will see later that this has an economic impact on workers, their families and all communities because it injects money into small businesses, towns, cities and all of our communities.

In a 2001 article entitled Union organizing under neutrality and card check agreements, Adrienne Eaton and Jill Kriesky said that employers used fewer unfair practices when card checks were used.

If a union is not always present in a workplace and the employer uses blackmail or promises promotions or particular positions if people campaign for its side, there is no balance of power. The employee's choice will not be fair and informed, and the employee will not be free from intimidation or threats from the employer. This kind of climate can destroy labour relations and can be emotionally traumatic for the employees.

That is what Adrienne Eaton and Jill Kriesky said. These authors even said 50% fewer employers run an anti-union campaign if card checks are used. When cards are signed, there are fewer unfair practices and anti-union campaigns. Furthermore, the number of successful union certifications seems to rise when there is a card check system and a neutrality agreement with the employer.

I have about eight other experts I could quote about the effects in British Columbia and Ontario. The number of attempts to unionize decreased, and their success rate dropped by 20% to 30% in most cases, even though unions offer a clear advantage.

On average, a unionized worker earns $4.97 more per hour than a non-unionized worker. The benefit is even greater for women. A unionized woman earns $6.65 more per hour than a non-unionized woman. If we were to take that additional money out of the economy, if we were to undo all of the collective bargaining that led to wage increases, the Canadian economy would lose $786 million a week. That is a big deal.

That is why the NDP will continue to push for a healthy work environment as well as for opportunities for all workers to organize and improve their working conditions, since that is how we create a more united, fair and egalitarian society and a better place to live.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are six motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-525.

Motions Nos. 1 to 6 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 6 to the House.

The House proceeded to the 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), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saluting those who have served as volunteer firefighters over the years in my community, the West Island of Montreal. They are sterling individuals. My constituents and I take our hats off to them.

In particular, I would like to mention two individuals, Peter Neville and Wayne Belvedere, who are residents of the town of Baie d’Urfé. Peter and Wayne are pillars of the community. It is hard to imagine what West Island community life would look like without them and the volunteer contributions they have made over the decades, contributions far too numerous to count.

Peter Neville and Wayne Belvedere are well-known and respected for their generosity of spirit. Both have worked side-by-side as volunteer firefighters, and also in support of various community causes and initiatives. I believe that if we looked into the matter we would discover that volunteer firefighters are more than just firefighters; they are the underpinnings of our communities in so many different ways. Their involvement is not limited to responding to fires. Their presence and influence radiate all through the community, through numerous channels and volunteer activities.

Both Peter Neville and Wayne Belvedere are loyal, long-time Rotarians. Their community engagement in the service of others knows no limits. They are models of civic participation and both were well-deserved recipients of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal last year. They made their home town of Baie d’Urfé stronger, as well as the West Island as a whole, through their involvement in charities and grassroots initiatives, including the Baie d’Urfé Volunteer Fire Department.

Sadly, we no longer have volunteer firefighters in the West Island of Montreal. Allow me to take a moment to explain why that is the case. It is not because the volunteer spirit has fled the West Island. Rather, the reason is structural and relates to a reorganization of a municipal government on the Island of Montreal that took place almost 15 years ago, and since then as well.

Around the year 2000, the Government of Quebec thought it would be a good idea to take all of the municipalities on the Island of Montreal, including the City of Montreal and numerous independent municipalities, and merge them into a concept known as “One island, One city”. This created quite a wave of protests in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis in the region of the island of Montreal known as the West Island. All these cities and towns were merged into the City of Montreal and their firefighting services became part of the City of Montreal firefighting service.

A couple of years later there was a movement to de-merge. It was called “de-merging”, a term I know we do not hear often. However, there was a movement to de-merge these formerly independent municipalities from the new City of Montreal, and they regained their independent status. They did get some of their powers back, such as their municipal councils and mayors. Unfortunately, as a result of the negotiations that took place involving the City of Montreal, the Government of Quebec, and these newly independent municipalities, they did not get their firefighting services back. Those remained under the jurisdiction of the City of Montreal, which does not allow volunteer firefighters. All firefighting is now within the purview of professional firefighting services.

Here we are talking about a bill that is problematic for a number of reasons.

Before we get to that, I would like mention that we on the Liberal side of the House do not share the government's anti-labour perspective. We certainly value the role of organized labour. On the other hand, we do not support everything organized labour would do on any given day. For us it is not a matter of faith, as it is for the NDP, to support every demand of organized labour, but we support organized labour, and we understand its role and its importance.

We believe that organized labour should be consulted before changes are made to the Labour Code. In fact, we found that organized labour, or firefighters associations, have not been consulted about the bill. We find this a violation of a principle we hold quite dear, the idea that we should consult widely before making changes to the Labour Code, and second, that the Labour Code should not be changed through private members' bills.

In this regard, we rest our view on the opinions of members of organized labour. I will quote Mr. Hassan Yussuff, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. He said when he appeared before the human resources committee during the study of another private member's bill:

Amendments should not be made through private members' bills. They should be made with concerted, pre-legislative consultation that engages employers, unions, and government.

We have a representative of the Canadian Labour Congress, a representative of the union movement in Canada, suggesting that this is not the route to take and that consultation is primordial.

Let me also quote from Mr. John Farrell, the executive director of the main employer group representing federally regulated employers, who also appeared before the human resources committee during the study of another private member's bill, Bill C-525:

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.

Last I quote a member of the NDP, a member of this House, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who said, on January 28, 2014:

I believe it is irresponsible on the part of the Conservative government to allow a private member's bill to amend Canada's labour relations legislation. If there were any case at all for changes to our labour relations legislation, then there must be consultations with all the stakeholders, and a full study before proceeding to draft any such bill. It should absolutely be done by a government bill, not a private member's bill.

There was not a lot of support among those who are involved in management-labour relations for taking this route. I firmly believe, as a private member, that consultation is a key principle. Consultation in labour relations and in changing the Labour Code is a kind of sacrosanct principle that should be respected. Unfortunately, the bill does not respect that principle.

I am not aware of any case where a federal government employer, in other words, a department or agency of the government, has said to a volunteer firefighter, “I am sorry. You cannot go and put out that fire. We need you at the office”. I do not know of any cases. Maybe we would have known of some cases if proper consultations had taken place.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to 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 committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There was an error in giving me a time that I was supposed to have and I appreciate that the clerk accommodated us, but that's why this particular....I mean it was a real scramble because we didn't get the 48 hours notice. I do think that this process isn't fair to me or to the committee, and that's the only point I wanted to make.

Now, going on to the substantive motion that I'm putting forward. GP-2 is a substantive change to clause 5 which does one simple thing, I can explain it very briefly.

Subsection 39.(2) of the Canada Labour Code makes a lot of sense. It's being repealed by the way this act is currently worded and if you earn a situation of decertification, if there's no collective agreement in place, but there is ongoing negotiation, and the bargaining agent is bargaining in good faith, you shouldn't actually create chaos in collective bargaining and labour relations.

Just to quote from the Canadian Labour Congress' brief to the committee, “that failure to improve this act”—as my amendment proposes—“will only serve to destabilize labour relations and undermine collective bargaining”.

I know this bill is a private member's bill, it's Blaine Calkins' bill. I'm not calling it the government bill. He's a diligent private member, but this is one of those examples of taking something....There is the old adage, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. This is one of a number of private members' bills, and some government bills, that aim directly at collective bargaining, as they have to other sectors, and say, “We're going to keep fixing it 'til it's broken”.

This little amendment would at least address this one gap in Bill C-525.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that we want to have timely responses and resolutions, but I think 48 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to make such an examination and inquiry.

This motion also opens a section that was not amended by Bill C-525, and I would question if it's even in order. But having said that, I think I've stated my two concerns with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Then we'll move on to amendment NDP-7 which is a new clause as proposed by the NDP, which would be clause 5.1. I must tell the table that this is inadmissible. It seeks to amend section 98 of the Canada Labour Code and that section is not being amended by Bill C-525. I have a ruling from the legal counsel. If you wish me to read it, I will.

The essence of what's being said here is that because section 98 of the Canada Labour Code is not being addressed in any of Bill C-525, we cannot accept an amendment to something we are not addressing.

Madam Sims.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This motion is going to ensure that the certification and decertification processes under the code mirror each other and, of course, both would require the support of 40% of employees so that the supporters and the opponents of union representation are placed on a level playing field.

Of course, I again want to note that Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland have adopted a similar approach.

This also ensures that the ballots of those in favour and those against the revocation of the union certification are given equal weight to a representation vote. As currently worded, Bill C-525 could lead to a revocation of a union certification even if a strong majority of the employees casting a ballot are in favour of remaining unionized, so, for example, if a decertification vote were held under the code for a bargaining unit with 100 employees, and if 35 employees did not participate, it would be decertified. Again, we are addressing what was a significant concern by our witnesses. They think this is a very important amendment to the bill.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you all for being here today.

Actually, that was a good segue, Mr. Marston, into my line of questioning, which is that we have had evidence before the committee, particularly from the president of PSAC the other day, where she indicated that she was elected by secret ballot, that when there is a collective agreement that they vote on they vote by secret ballot, when they have a strike vote they vote by secret ballot. The only thing they don't vote on by secret ballot is certifying or decertifying a union.

I don't quite see how there's this big, major change, this huge difference that Bill C-525 is going to have when all the other times the members of the union vote, they do it by secret ballot, except certifying or decertifying a union.

Can someone explain to me how this is some revolutionary terrible change that's going to take place within federally regulated unionized workplaces, when every other time the members vote they vote by secret ballot?

Who wants to start?

[Satinder Chera]

Thank you, sir.

I want to set this up because I think this issue really shouldn't be too controversial in that when you ask Canadians for their preferences when it comes to unions in general, it seems they have pretty strong opinions about not being part of a union, and more importantly, those who have been formerly unionized also don't think too highly of being unionized.

On slide 5, secret ballot votes are very much a cornerstone of our democracy. Our members, as well as working Canadians, very much support secret ballot votes. In fact, recently, CFIB submitted a letter to all MPs outlining our encouragement for a more democratic voting system in federally regulated workplaces.

On slide 6, we ask our members whether secret ballot votes should be mandatory prior to any union certification, and 76% were in favour of that outcome. Again, I would provide this background. Our members in provinces where there are card-based certifications in place often talk about the fear factor that is involved in union drives. So we think providing for a secret ballot vote would be one way to take out that fear factor so that workers, who should be the ones making the decision, can be free of intimidation, whether it's the union or the employer. They can do it with the comfort and the peace of mind that no one's going to know how they particularly voted.

On slide 7, there was also the question that was asked about in the Leger Marketing poll. Canadians were asked whether a secret ballot vote should be required when forming or removing a union from a workplace. We've broken it out here in terms of the result: those who are currently unionized and those who were formerly unionized. Again, there are fairly high levels of support for having a secret ballot system in place, so really it's non-controversial, I think, in that respect.

On slide 8, and concluding, Mr. Chair, we do very much believe that this committee should adopt Bill C-525. We think it's really non-controversial in the sense that the principle of a secret ballot vote is supported by taxpayers and by a vast majority of Canadians. Even those who are unionized or formerly unionized agree strongly that this should be put in place. I would simply make the observation that if secret ballot votes are good enough to elect our representatives in government, they should very much be good enough to elect a union.

Thank you very much for your time, and I'd be happy to take any questions you may have.

[Satinder Chera, Vice-President, Communications, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and our 109,000 small and mid-sized members across the country, we thank the committee for allowing us to speak to Bill C-525 this morning.

Just by way of background, we at CFIB are a membership that is 100% voluntary. We represent all sectors in all regions of the country. We are strictly a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization. We are 100% funded by our membership. We accept no government dollars and, in terms of our policy agenda, we work through a democratic survey process that is one member equals one vote.

In terms of the issue at hand, I thought it would be helpful to provide some background material. On slide 3 there was a survey that was recently conducted by Leger Marketing for the Canadian LabourWatch Association that asked Canadians about their preferences for being unionized. On slide 3 those results are for Canadians who have never been unionized and, as it makes it very clear, 71% have no interest at all in being unionized going forward.

On slide 4, of those who were formerly unionized, interestingly enough, 69% also prefer not to be unionized.

[Dick Heinen]

—if the number of voters who chose not to cast a ballot were automatically counted against you?

Second, no other labour law in Canada is based on this standard of voting. No other jurisdiction automatically counts non-voters as having voted against certification.

Bill C-525, as written, would disadvantage workers in workplaces under federal jurisdiction over workers anywhere else in the country. It seems to me the federal government shouldn't be trying to set double standards in the area of labour laws.

We propose that it be amended that all sections of the bill concerning voting for certification or decertification that state “the majority of employees in the bargaining unit” be replaced with “the majority of votes cast”. This simple amendment to the bill would address the first issue that I've raised.

I would strongly encourage the committee to put forward such an amendment to this bill.

I also want to draw the committee's attention to one other aspect of the bill that I believe should be given consideration. That is how votes would be handled in remote workplaces and among workers in the federally regulated transportation sector who are often dispersed around the country.

Remote work sites, such as those often found in development projects in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut pose their own sets of issues when it comes to fair voting practices. In most cases, workers at these remote sites are rotated in and out to work at the work site. It means that, should a vote for certification or decertification take place, it is likely that only a portion of the workers would ever be available at any one time to participate in a secret ballot vote.

Similar problems would be experienced by workers in the transportation industry who are rarely, if ever, in the same location together. The problems to fair voting in this case are obvious.

I understand that Elizabeth just mentioned that there are other ways of voting. There are mail-in ballots and now there is electronic balloting as well.

[Dick Heinen, Executive Director, Christian Labour Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today about this bill.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada, CLAC, is one of the largest independent unions in Canada and one of Canada's fastest-growing unions. Founded in 1952, we represent more than 60,000 people across the country. We have a very strong presence in oil and gas development projects in Alberta, natural resource development in British Columbia, as well as construction, mining, health care, and other industries throughout Canada. But particular to these proceedings, CLAC has a strong construction and mining presence north of 60, which is the jurisdiction of the CIRB, and we are very much affected by the changes, as well as the transportation industry across the country, interprovincial.

Now fundamentally, CLAC believes in competition in the labour relations environment in Canada. We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all. The Canadian economy benefits from a more competitive labour environment, and CLAC supports efforts to improve the Canadian economy and at the same time to strengthen the democratic rights of workers.

Fundamentally, competition offers a fairer deal for Canadian workers and helps to create a better workplace through freedom of choice. Now Bill C-525, on the surface, seems to support these objectives. Requiring a vote for both certification and decertification is, in many cases, a standard in provincial labour law, and moving federal law to a similar model makes sense. However, Bill C-525 makes significant errors that place it offside with labour standards across the country. Furthermore, because of the geographical reach of Bill C-525, there are some unique challenges in the application of the bill.

First, for a successful vote on either certification or decertification, Bill C-525 would require a majority of the entire bargaining unit. This standard of voting goes well beyond any other labour law in Canada and is beyond the requirements we see even in voting for federal and provincial general elections.

Requiring 50% plus one of the entire workforce is a standard that is unfair for a number of reasons. First, there may be many workers who simply prefer not to vote, and in some cases, be it sickness, injury, transportation, vacation, they are not able to vote. In such a case their decision or their situation not to cast a vote becomes a de facto vote against the union.

In effect, Bill C-525 would mandate that in a certification vote every worker would be counted as having voted no, unless they vote yes. Just let that sink in for a moment. If you choose not to vote or for some reason you're unable to vote, you're still counted as having voted. Now that's what the bill proposes to do. Can you imagine in your own ridings—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today is Thursday, February 13, 2014 and we're continuing our consideration of private member's bill C-525.

For our first hour today, we are once again joined by a robust panel of witnesses. From the Canada Industrial Relations Board we are joined by chairperson Ms. Elizabeth MacPherson and Ms. Ginette Brazeau, who is the executive director and general counsel.

We are also joined by Mr. Dick Heinen, executive director at the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

Joining us by video conference from Toronto is Mr. Satinder Chera, vice-president of communications for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Also joining us by video conference from Paris, France, and appearing as an individual is Mr. Marcel Boyer, emeritus professor of Economics at the Université de Montréal and fellow at the Centre for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations.

I now turn the floor over to our witnesses for their opening presentations.

I ask that you please keep your remarks to seven minutes. I believe you've been advised of that by the clerk. We do have limited time. We will have limited for questions after that. We are still awaiting, I believe, the agenda for the day. I don't know whether you've received it, but we will proceed as per the introductions, beginning with Ms. Elizabeth MacPherson speaking on behalf of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee has only been discussing Bill C-525 for an hour, and I think we can already conclude that it could be described as amateurish, and was written on the back of a napkin. As we have heard, no one was consulted. Even the experts were not asked for their opinion.

I would like to point out that the author of the bill himself took off when we had only one hour to hear from people who know about labour relations. He did not want to hear what they had to say. That in itself is quite extraordinary.

It is our opinion that there should have been a serious process, that both the employer side and the union side should have been consulted. We should also have the time, in committee, to hear from people who know about labour relations.

This is why Ms. Sims asked last week for five hours to hear from witnesses. As things stand, we will not be able to hear from the people we should be hearing from, including Unifor, the largest private sector union, the USW, Quebec unions, such as the FTQ and the CSN, as well as labour relations experts from Quebec. None of those people will be able to express their point of view.

I would nonetheless like to ask Mrs. Picard her opinion on one point.

Bill C-525 introduces rules for decertifying a union, which is used to get rid of it or destroy it. According to the rules as they are currently drafted, the union would be thrown out even if 54% of workers voted to keep the union and no one voted in favor of its elimination.

I do not know if these are democratic rules coming from North Korea or some other country called “Absurdistan“, but I would like to know what repercussions this may have on the members that you represent.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by putting something on the record. I had 28 years in the labour movement as a voluntary president and vice-president of the communication workers for Bell Canada and 14 years, again non-salaried, as the president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Farrell, in the subtext of what you've been saying here today, I think you've both hit the nail on the head. It's not appropriate for a private member's bill to move forward such significant changes as proposed recently in Bill C-377 and currently in Bill C-525.

It's pretty clear to us—and we're allowed to have a divergence of opinion—that this is ideologically driven. It has not been given the due consultations, and I would suggest that the committee would be well advised to forgo this piece of legislation in favour of government legislation. If we go through the consultative process as we should, and it calls for change, that's very important. We've had 70 years of labour peace.

Mr. Smith, you pointed out capital investment at risk. I'd like you to expand on that, if you would, sir.

[Magali Picard, Regional Executive Vice-President (Quebec), Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Robyn.

As you know, votes on certification or decertification will henceforth depend on the total number of employees in a bargaining unit. Currently, the law stipulates that the majority rules when there is a vote, whether it be for certification or decertification. However, Bill C-525 demands that the union get an absolute majority, which is to say the majority of the entire bargaining unit. It also stipulates that not casting a ballot or abstaining means a vote against the union.

Why allow non-voters to decide what is to become of an entire group of employees? If you, as MPs, cannot vote or if you abstain from voting on a bill before the House of Commons, are you presumed to be voting against it?

In Quebec, labour legislation requires an absolute majority for certification and decertification votes. It is the only province in the country to do so. However, this legislation is very different from Bill C-525. Indeed, it allows automatic certification by counting out the cards. A vote is only held when there is no majority. Bill C-525 would remove this mechanism from federal labour legislation. Unlike Bill C-525, Quebec legislation makes it mandatory for each employee to vote, and they cannot abstain without a legitimate reason.

As we have already stated, the more votes have to be organized, the longer the certification or decertification process will be. This favors the employers, who will have more time to encourage workers to vote against the union or to simply abstain from voting. Furthermore, under Bill C-525, an abstention is considered a vote against the union.

Let us be clear. Bill C-525 offers no protection whatsoever to workers' democratic rights. Its aim is to prevent them from unionizing and allowing the employer to interfere in the process.

Barbaric tactics used by the government are of grave concern to us. First of all, it is using a private member's bill to upset the balance between workers' and employers' rights. Furthermore, the government is trying to rush the adoption of Bill C-525 in order to avoid questions and debate.

We strongly urge members of this committee and all MPs to reject Bill C-525.

Thank you.

[Robyn Benson, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Good morning.

I'm going to be sharing my time with Magali Picard, who is the regional executive vice-president for Quebec. And of course, should there be any questions, then I also have Shannon Blatt, who is our legal officer, and she'll be able to respond.

I want to thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee.

Bill C-525 proposes to change how unions are certified and decertified under three pieces of legislation. It affects hundreds of thousands of workers in the federal public service, in the parliamentary service, and in all federally regulated industries and crown corporations.

The purpose of labour law is to ensure fairness and balance in the workplace, to protect the rights of workers, and to promote harmonious labour relations. Bill C-525 upsets some of the democratic safeguards in the current laws that enable workers to express their wishes free from interference and intimidation. As a private member’s bill, it was introduced without the usual broad consultation process that involves employers, unions, and the government. It was introduced without any evidence that the rules for certification and decertification need to be changed in this way.

Bill C-525 introduces some disturbing elements that will interfere with the ability of workers to unionize federally. They go against the very spirit of the right to freedom of association enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill eliminates the right to automatic certification when a majority of workers show their intent to form a union by signing a union card and paying a fee when they sign. This is known as card check.

Bill C-525 imposes a mandatory secret vote even where a majority has already signed a union card. Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples. What we object to is forcing workers to show twice that they want to unionize. We know that signing a union card is a step that employees don’t take lightly or carelessly. We believe their wishes should be respected. Studies have also shown that the elimination of card check reduces the ability of workers to actually unionize.

We also expect that the labour boards will not be given any more resources, so the time between an application for certification and an actual vote is going to increase. This will allow more time for employers to intimidate workers into not voting. Unlike labour laws in Ontario and B.C., Bill C-525 does not impose a short timeframe for a vote to be held.

Bill C-525 is also profoundly undemocratic in several ways. In the case of decertification, a minority of workers will be able to overturn the wishes of the majority. The bill would change the Public Service Labour Relations Act to allow a mere 45% to be able to dissolve the union regardless of what the majority wants.

I will now turn it over to my colleague, Madame Picard.

[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.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House to speak today to the employees' voting rights act, Bill C-525, put forward by my colleague. The bill aims to amend the rules for union certification and decertification in federally regulated workplaces to ensure that individuals have access to a secret ballot system.

I commend my hon. colleague for raising this issue. Democracy is fundamental to Canadian society, and all employees should have the right to express whether they wish to be part of a union. Why would the NDP and the Liberals want to remove this right, which they would do if they did not vote for Bill C-525?

Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers while ensuring a productive environment for businesses. The Canada Labour Code guarantees employees a set of rights, including safe working conditions and minimum labour standards. One of those rights is the right to join or not join a union.

In Canada about 30% of all workers belong to unions, which include the more traditional unionized occupations. They include manufacturing workers, miners, electricians, and workers in other construction trades. They also include professionals, such as engineers and nurses, and employees in federal, provincial, and municipal public administrations, schools, and hospitals.

Unions are for the most part very democratic organizations. The employees' voting rights act would extend that principle. It would help to ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express their wishes about certifying or decertifying a union.

Currently, under federal labour legislation, a card check system can be used to form a union. If the majority of the employees sign membership cards, the relevant labour board can automatically certify a union. For example, under the current system, if 11 out of 20 employees sign a union membership card, the remaining nine individuals may not even be asked to sign. They may not even be aware that their colleagues want to form a union, yet they would automatically be unionized.

It is like in Manitoba. We all know how unaccountable the NDP members are in Manitoba, with the premier now the lowest in popularity of all the premiers in Canada. I am sure today's byelections in Arthur-Virden and Morris will prove the lack of accountability and democratic accountability even more.

This means that in many cases, unions can be certified without giving all employees the fair opportunity to truly express their wishes.

The employees' voting rights act proposes to eliminate automatic certification and to use mandatory secret ballot votes to certify or decertify unions in all cases. Voting, which was once the exception, would now be the rule for certifying or decertifying unions at the federal level. It would ensure that all employees would have an equal opportunity to express themselves through a secret ballot vote when considering whether to certify or decertify a union.

I absolutely support the right of every employee to a secret ballot vote. It would provide every employee with the ability to voice an opinion and would give people time to fully consider their options. That is why I support the principle of the employees' voting rights act and will vote in favour at second reading.

I have been hearing from stakeholders, and I understand that there may be some concerns about certain provisions of the bill. Mr. Speaker, with your support, the House committee will have an opportunity to carefully study the bill and consult with key stakeholders to consider their input and views. As I said, I support the principle of the employees' voting rights act. The bill must find the right balance between the needs of employees, unions, and employers. I am confident that the bill could do just that.

I would like to encourage my hon. colleagues to support the bill at second reading and to defend the democratic rights of the workers of our country. This legislation would ensure that every federally regulated employee would have access to a secret ballot vote when considering union representation. It would ensure that employees would determine for themselves whether they wished to be represented by a union, and they could have their voices heard.

With any legislation, it is always important to hear the views and feedback of those who would be most impacted and to take these into careful consideration. I have no doubt that the members of this House committee will carefully consider the principles behind this bill and examine the unique perspectives of the employees, unions, and employer groups that will provide needed perspective on this bill.

I would like to again take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for working to support the rights of employees by raising this issue and I encourage my hon. colleagues to stand in support of this bill at second reading.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. It was the former minister of labour, now the Minister of Transport. I thank the member for pointing that out to me.

When I look at the bill, I am reminded of part of an old labour song, Solidarity Forever, that nothing is weaker than the feeble strength of one. That is one of the reasons that in the 1940s in Canada, we started down the road to unionization. Many of the fathers of the good veterans we have in this place today were probably part of that union movement when they came home from the war and did not like the imbalance in labour relations in this country.

To be clear for the record, I was the president of a communication workers local for Bell Canada. For a number of years, I was president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council. I was very proud to serve in those positions. For the record as well, those were non-paid positions.

Some people in this place like to refer to labour unions in a variety of disparaging ways, but I want to be clear tonight about Bill C-525. It is nothing less than a back-door attempt to weaken those organizations that protect workers every day in the workplace, the labour unions. Bill C-525 would do so by fundamentally changing the processes for certifying or decertifying a union under federal jurisdiction. I believe the sole purpose of Bill C-525 is to bring union organizing in the federal jurisdiction to a complete halt. It is nothing short of a very sly way to create a situation that the Conservative government hopes will lead to a drastic increase in union decertification. The Conservatives hope to succeed by bringing about a low turnout of members, and just as voter suppression has been taking place in federal voting, they plan on dealing with that same issue in the same manner of allowing fewer people to decertify a union.

Decades, or some 70 years, of business, government, and labour unions working together, have gone into the processes that we have today, and the government tends to leave out the fact that when a backbencher puts forward such a bill, it is adding to its own efforts. Another bill before this House is Bill C-377. Between the two bills, the goal is obvious: to set back labour relations in Canada to the bad old days of the 1940s.

Hamilton was one of those places in Canada where former veterans and workers banded together to get union representation. It was Justice Rand in his wisdom in 1946 who said that if a person was part of a union, they did not have to join it but had to pay for the free collective bargaining, which was not free. They had to contribute their union dues. Again, they did not have to be a member, but they were sharing the cost.

Where are the consultations, the due diligence, required for such a change? With Bill C-525 that simply has not happened. It was crafted without any consultation with the key stakeholders from either the union or employers' side.

I believe it is irresponsible on the part of the Conservative government to allow a private member's bill to amend Canada's labour relations legislation. If there were any case at all for changes to our labour relations legislation, then there must be consultations with all the stakeholders, and a full study before proceeding to draft any such bill. It should absolutely be done by a government bill, not a private member's bill.

These changes, as set out in Bill C-525, would weaken the ability of workers to seek union representation for collective bargaining, as well as advocacy on their behalf when disputes arise with their employers.

The bill would increase the number of membership cards needed to trigger union certification or decertification. It would eliminate the option to form a union through a majority card check, which would leave workers vulnerable to intimidation by employers, or worse, to those third parties hired.

I have stood before those third parties. I have been on picket lines many times where the third parties were hired and were standing on the other side of the picket line with baseball bats in their hands.

I am not sure, but I hope the member proposing this change simply does not understand or appreciate the risks that some workers face. It is their fundamental right to withdraw their services after a due vote, and when they do so they should not be put at risk.

Currently, if a majority of workers vote in favour of forming a union, then that union is certified. Under the new rules, a majority of the entire bargaining unit, not just those who turn out for the vote, must vote in favour of forming a union. Non-unions would essentially be counted, under this new proposal, as voting against a union simply if they are not in attendance.

Under the decertification process proposed in Bill C-525, the new rules would require a majority of the membership to vote in favour of continuing representation, to prevent decertification. In other words, it would make it almost automatic if there is no participation.

If we look at how low the voting patterns are in our elections and if rules like that applied, then MPs would wind up not sitting in these seats because the assumption would be against their being elected. It is the same thing.

For workers covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the bill would require 55% of members to vote for continued representation, to prevent decertification. That stacks the cards against people's rights. It is their right to make this determination.

As I indicated earlier, Bill C-525 would throw the Canada Labour Code out the back door. It would forego the dialogue and the consultative processes developed over seventy years that have made changing labour legislation a progressive practice where the rights of workers are always a major aspect involved in any discussion with employers and workers.

It is clear to even a casual observer that this private member's bill is gerrymandered for union busting. It would make it nearly impossible for Canadian workers in the federal jurisdiction to form a union. Like Bill C-377 last year, the Conservative government is using the back door by way of a private member's bill to open the labour code instead of admitting that it is simply a Trojan Horse piece of government legislation.

If the government truly feels that legislative change is necessary—and that is a possibility—the Minister of Labour should bring it before the stakeholders in the business and labour community and consult with them and then do due diligence by way of a study before drafting changes to our labour relations act.

Failing that, the government needs to understand that the opposition now sees this legislation for what it truly is. Soon all Canadians will understand it is yet another example of the Conservatives' agenda to drive down the wages of the middle class and make Canadian workers work for less.

Bill C-525 is a reckless and radical piece of legislation taken straight from the Republican playbook in the United States.

Contrary to the rhetoric of the extreme political right, attacks on collective bargaining do not promote economic growth, but rather they drive income inequality and create toxic work environments that turn Canadians against each other.

Organized workers in Canada have delivered results: better wages, more rights for workers and a more secure future, not just for union members but for all Canadians.

There is a bumper sticker that says, “Unions: the people who brought you the weekend”. That is a bit light for this occasion but it is a fact. If it were not for unions in this country, people would be working six days a week, twelve hours a day, for next to nothing.

Some people work very hard in this country and they happen to be members of a union. They are proud of the work they do, and I am proud of them.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-525.

Earlier, in question period today, the Minister of Labour made a statement that I would not mind having attributed to myself. She called the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie the MP for CUPW.

Where I come from, we stand up for all the people in our community, whether they happen to be in CUPW or any other union. I want to commend that member for the good work he is doing.

I am reminded, when I look at this—

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government can come up with all the arbitrary legislation and restrictive measures it likes, but, given the significance of the issues we are now dealing with, we are asking it to think about the consequences of Bill C-525 for parliamentary and public sector employees.

The mandatory voting system that will be imposed for certification will cause insurmountable difficulties for unions, in an economic climate in which the union movement is in somewhat of a precarious position. In recent years, we have seen many failed attempts at unionization in a number of sectors of the economy because of the economic disparity that exists between employees and employers.

A number of companies are getting around the certification rules in effect in Canada by imposing unusual labour standards, by manipulating the weakest and most disadvantaged employees, and by threatening to fire those attracted by the benefits of association. To propose the abolition of the current card system is a curious message to send to employers, especially from, to say the least, a major employer in the world of labour relations.

For decades, we have seen the financial status of thousands of Canadians deteriorating because of the industry crises shaking a number of communities in the country. Coming up with changes to the current bargaining system is one thing, but obstructing the limited opportunities for certification that unions have is another. We cannot deny that this country's growth and prosperity have depended on the toil and the commitment of workers and employees in all economic sectors. We cannot deny that our socio-economic progress stems from the efforts of many of the employees who are unionized today.

Think about the Canada of yesterday, the Canada of our parents or of my youth, where the word “equality” found its meaning solely in the dictionaries of our respective languages. The government's desire to upset the balance of power in labour relations and its narrow vision of the word “negotiation” are black marks on the record of social progress made in Canada since the Second World War.

I remember the changes made to Quebec's provincial public service in the early 1960s. Inequality was the norm. Women had so few rights, even within the public service, that they were forever stuck in low-paying jobs, on the fringes of power. The labour movement awakened the public conscience. Quebec was Catholic, then secular and, above all, committed to modernizing employee-employer relations. It seems odd to us to take a step backwards when society is undergoing such profound change.

Can we meddle with unions to straighten out labour relations in Canada? The answer is self-evident. However, the Conservatives' desire to change our country's basic values raises a thorny issue, that of social equality. We agreed to civilized employer-union relations, so that everyone can have access to decent working conditions.

Everyone here has witnessed the exploitation of the weakest in our society, yet the alternative being proposed here is not to study union accreditation rules but to limit access to unionization.

They should give us their statistics and their studies on how the current certification system is being abused. We are still waiting for their hasty conclusions on the place of the union movement in Canada.

As usual, we are left with only public speculation, which leads to these bills that restrict our rights. We are trapped in Conservative rhetoric. According to the Conservatives, unions are the only threats to the social balance of our communities. According to them, unions are the only cause of all of our economic troubles. This government's refusal to recognize the importance of healthy labour relations is reflected in a harsh bill that serves a political class inspired by an agenda from another era.

Instead, let us look together at how the existing certification rules work and what employees really need. Hundreds of millions of current and future unionized workers will be affected by Bill C-525. We can all agree that narrowing the prerogatives of unions is part of the Conservatives' magnanimous plan to change the very foundations of our democracy.

We wish that the government would realize, once and for all, that workers' rights and the rights of Canadians in general pose no threat to the cornerstones of our economic system. However, the potential dissolution of hundreds of union locals as a result of the adoption of Bill C-525 represents a genuine threat to Canada's socio-economic well-being.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Parliament and the members here have seen a litany of legislation, introduced by government members, that would restrict fundamental freedoms in order to build a new federative pact.

Every time, we are baffled by the methods that are used in the House, that disregard any will to consult, even though we are talking about social issues.

The Conservatives are redefining labour relations using a restrictive vision of the freedom of association as recognized by the charter. Bill C-525 is yet another way to erode the civilized power relationship between employers and unions.

Over the years we have seen that the union movement, for all its good and bad, has helped workers in the public and private sectors get their rights recognized on many occasions. The history of labour relations in Canada has been enriched by the battles fought by public sector employees who paved the way for union recognition and balanced negotiations that gave meaning to the word “justice”.

The government can come up with all the arbitrary legislation and restrictive measures it likes, but, given the significance of the issues we are now dealing with, we are asking it to think about the consequences of Bill C-525 for parliamentary and public sector employees.

The mandatory voting system that will be imposed for certification will cause insurmountable difficulties for unions, in an economic climate in which the union movement is in somewhat of a precarious position.

In recent years, we have seen a high number of failed attempts at unionization in a number of sectors—

That House resumed from October 29, 2013, 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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started to talk about what the bill does to workers' rights. We know that some elements of Bill C-4 will violate workers' rights. There have been other bills, such as Bill C-377, which forced unions to disclose their financial information to the general public, even though this information is already provided to their members. Bill C-525 goes even further with respect to the right to organize.

Is my colleague concerned about this trend? The Conservatives are trying to weaken workers' groups and groups that advocate for workers' rights, the rights of average Canadians, of those who work hard every day. At the same time, they are giving rights and powers to the minister. Does the member share my concern?

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-525.

It makes me reflect on my own background. I started my working life in the retail sector, working for a very large employer in a non-unionized workplace. As a young person, I did not really know the difference. I was glad to get some money for the work that I did. However, then I applied for and I was successful in getting a job in another workplace. It was another Canadian employer but this one had a pre-existing union.

My salary increased substantially when I went to work for the second employer. I suddenly had all kinds of health benefits and extended benefits that I did not know were possible. I also had a grievance procedure, which meant that if there were problems in the workplace that could not be resolved, there was a mechanism to address these problems without having to go as a sole individual employee to the employer. Instead I would have some guidance and assistance through my workplace representative.

When I first began to work in this second job, the employer, as usually happens, told me about the workplace and the advantages of working in this workplace, and I was very happy to be there. It was only later that I found out that it was people who had come before me who had gotten together to form a union and who had negotiated in successive collective agreements to improve the wages, the working conditions and the benefits of that workplace through many hard-won gains over a great many years. I discovered that it was not just the generosity of the employer that made that a great place to work, it was in fact the work of other employees who were there and people who had come before us who had made that a great place to work. They had negotiated a standard of living that allowed people to earn decent wages and benefits right across the country for that employer. I was very proud to be a member of that union and to work to improve the standard of living and the benefits for those who would come after me.

With this private member's bill, the hon. member opposite would bring the weight of the law down on the side of the employer. The bill would take that collective bargaining scale and further tip it toward the advantage of the employer, making any improvements in the workplace so much more difficult for the working people and making it that much more difficult for them even to get a union.

The member, in presenting his bill, talked about democracy. Yet, he sees no contradiction that this would in fact disenfranchise so many working people in the federal jurisdiction across this country. I find it absolutely shocking that he would stand there and talk about democracy when he would erode and undermine the democratic rights of so many working people in the federal jurisdiction.

Let me explain. What the bill ultimately would do is change fundamentally the voting process, so that when working people are deciding whether to join a union or to cease to belong to a union, the votes that are counted would be all of those in this group of workers, even those who choose not to participate in the vote. In other words, if they do not vote, their vote would always be counted against the union. In other words, it would be a process of heads the employer wins, and tails the workers lose.

It would be weighted disproportionately in favour of employers, and that would make it almost impossible for working people to form a union or to keep a union where there is a decertification vote.

As my colleague has just said, Bill C-525 sets the bar so high for workers to join a union that the sponsor of the bill, who won in his own riding by over 80% of the vote in the last election, could not get elected under these rules for union certification. In fact, not a single member of the governing party would be elected under these same rules.

It is clearly hypocritical. It is clearly unfair. It is clearly designed to undermine the ability of working people to decide to have a collective voice to negotiate on their behalf and to represent them in the workplace.

The member opposite has been asked who he consulted with in presenting the bill, which would fundamentally and radically change the system of labour relations in this country. Who did he consult with? He could name no one. Yet, clearly this is a bill that the government seems to have thrown its full weight behind.

It is not surprising that there has been a lack of consultation. That has been the hallmark of the government. It has also been its hallmark to try to impose its radical changes on Canadians, whether it is omnibus budget implementation bills or it is bringing in closure in the House. The government has just introduced the fourth of its mega-bills into the House, which throws everything in but the kitchen sink and changes a massive number of laws all in one fell swoop without adequate consultation, and it has also stifled democratic debate on a record number of occasions.

The government's desire with this private member's bill is in fact to stifle democratic debate and democratic participation in our federal jurisdiction workplaces. It does seem to go hand in hand with its standard procedure.

Ultimately what the government would like to do is see a decline in union representation, federally, in this country. I think what Canadians will very quickly see is that, as we have seen in the United States, this will be an attack on middle-class living standards in this country. Working people will earn less, have fewer rights in the workplace and have less democratic input into the place where they spend most of their lives, which is the workplace. It will undermine the middle-class standard of living and it will increase inequality.

It does not have to be that way. We can look at some of the most productive, most competitive countries in the world. Look at some of the Scandinavian countries, countries like the Netherlands or Germany, the powerhouse of Europe. They have incredibly high levels of union representation. What that means is that employers and employees sit down together and negotiate. Everyone wants the workplace to do well, wants the company to succeed, and wants working people to have their fair share. That is what union representation is about.

I see my time is up. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity. I say shame on the government if it pursues this anti-union, anti-worker, anti-middle class agenda. We will not stand for it on this side of the House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today about the member for Wetaskiwin's private member's bill, the employees' voting rights act. This bill aims to amend the rules for union certification and decertification in federally-regulated workplaces, to ensure that all individuals have access to secret ballot voting. I commend my hon. colleague for raising and pursuing this issue.

Democracy is fundamental to Canadian society and all employees should have the right to vote on whether they wish to form a union or not. Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers, while ensuring a fair and productive workplace environment for businesses to maximize Canada's economic potential. One of these rights is, again, to join or not join a union and participate, or not, in the collective bargaining process.

In Canada, including provincial and federal jurisdictions, about 30% of the workforce is unionized. This includes occupations like transportation workers, manufacturers, miners, electricians and workers in other construction trades. It also includes professionals, such as engineers, nurses and employees in federal, provincial and municipal public administrations, schools and hospitals. All in all, there are about 4 million unionized workers in over 100 different unions.

Some workers are of the view that unions help them to negotiate collective agreements with their employers, protecting them against what they feel are arbitrary changes in work rules, discrimination, unfair treatment and unequal pay for similar work. Obviously, others are flat out opposed to unionization. What both of these groups of workers have in common is that they do have the right and the freedom to choose to be, or not be, part of a union. This bill is designed to extend that principle. It would help to ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express their wishes about forming or decertifying a union.

Currently, a card check system can be used to form a union. If the majority of employees sign membership cards, they can automatically be certified as a union. When the level of employee support is insufficient for automatic certification but meets a minimum threshold, for example, 35% under the Canada Labour Code, the labour board conducts a vote to determine employee support for a union. If the majority of employees casting ballots supports a union in this vote, the union can be certified.

For example, under our current system, if 11 out of 20 employees sign the union membership card, the remaining 9 individuals may not be asked to sign and may not even be aware that their colleagues want to form a union, yet they could automatically be unionized. This means that in many cases, unions can be certified without giving all employees the opportunity to express their wishes.

The bill proposes to eliminate automatic certification and use mandatory secret ballot votes to certify or decertify a union in all cases. This will make votes no longer the exception, but the rule for certifying or decertifying unions. The employees' voting rights act would ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express themselves by a secret ballot vote when considering whether to certify or decertify.

We have heard a lot about employers and intimidation and the unions and intimidation, but what no one has talked about, and what was my own individual experience. It was a good workplace that had been in operation for many years. The situation was changing in terms of reorganization and there was a debate going on. There were people who felt very strongly. It was a small group of about 25 employees. It had nothing to do with the employer or any kind of intimidation. It had to do with the employee wanting the ability to have a secret ballot so that not all the members, colleagues and co-workers, who felt strongly on one side or the other of the issue, would know how he or she voted. What we have lost in this debate today is the simple ability for workers to exercise their votes in secrecy, like we do every day in every election in Canada.

Our Conservative government supports the right of every employee to a secret ballot.

It would provide every employee with the ability to voice his or her opinion and would allow time to fully consider his or her decision before voting for or against the union. That is why we support the intent behind Bill C-525 and will vote in favour of it at second reading.

That said, there are areas of the bill that we believe could be amended, and we would like to hear from and consult with our stakeholders, both employer and union, in committee. The House committee will have an opportunity to carefully study the bill. It will consult with stakeholders and carefully consider their input and views.

We support the intent of Bill C-525. It must find the right balance between the needs of employees, unions, and employers, and I am confident that the bill could do just that.

I would like to encourage my hon. colleagues to support this bill at second reading and defend the democratic rights of the workers of our country. This legislation would ensure that every federally regulated employee had access to a secret ballot vote when considering union representation. Again, I ask members to look back to the example of the small, tight-knit workplace. Workers had a difficult decision because of changing circumstances, and they wanted to exercise that right with privacy, even from their colleagues, in terms of what decision they made.

The legislation would ensure that employees would determine for themselves whether they wished to be represented by a union, and they could have their voices heard.

With any legislation, of course, it is important to hear the views and feedback of those who would be most impacted and to take them into careful consideration. I have no doubt that the members of the House committee would carefully consider the principles behind the bill and would examine the unique perspectives of employees, unions, and employer groups that would provide needed perspective on the bill.

Again, I congratulate and thank the hon. member for working to support the rights of employees by raising this issue and I would like to encourage hon. colleagues to stand in support of this bill at second reading. We can have a great discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michel Bédard]

Next is Bill C-525, which would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to require that the certification and decertification of the bargaining unit be achieved by secret ballot.

This bill does not concern questions outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. It is not substantially similar to another private member's bill already on the order paper, and it is not similar to a government bill currently on the order paper.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the House for allowing unanimous consent so that I could take part in this debate, which was noted by my friend and colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He was not sure whether it was because the House had anticipated my comments so much and were so looking forward to what I had to say, or more so that they liked to limit my friend and colleague from Kings—Hants to 10 minutes. Whatever the rationale was, I appreciate the House allowing me to go forward.

I want to speak about the principles behind some aspects of the legislation. One of the comments that the parliamentary secretary mentioned when he led off the debate today was that it was not strange to have a bill of this size with so many components in it. It is 321 pages, but he said the last four bills have been of similar size.

The last four bills have been presented by the same government and concerns have been raised. Certainly the opposition parties voiced their disapproval with such a practice on those four occasions, but he was able to justify the bill by saying the last four were presented in a very similar manner. That would be like an NHL coach saying, “I didn't make the playoffs the last four years, but now you decide to fire me in my fifth year”. The unfortunate part is that maybe we do not get an opportunity to fire the government for another couple of years, but that day too shall come.

I want to talk about what was mentioned by my colleague from Kings—Hants with regard to some of the aspects of this piece of legislation as it deals with changing labour relationships in this country. I will read these into the record.

I want to talk about principles that a government must respect in creating legislation, such as what we are debating today, that affects millions of Canadians. In particular, it affects over 1.2 million hard-working Canadians who work in federal industries and the public service.

For Canadians, the affected workers in particular, to believe in these laws, they must have faith and trust in their government. However, trust and respect does not come with some gun pointed to their heads. Governing is about striking balance, a balance between things such as the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and the other, between social and economic values, and between the interests of the employer and the employee. Part of figuring out that balance is listening to people who may not agree with us and respecting the principles of fairness and due process when creating laws that fundamentally affect them. I do not believe there has been a government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance and replaced due process and fairness with political expediency than the current Conservative government.

The amendments to labour legislation in the bill are just another example of this. The government is using this omnibus budget bill as a back door to making major changes to the rules affecting collective bargaining in the public service. These changes, without doubt, are being made to weaken the public service unions by stacking the deck in favour of the employer and in this case, the employer is the government.

This type of behaviour only breeds mistrust and disrespect. It is not how we as individuals would expect to be treated and it simply lessens the institution of government when it continues out of control as we have seen under the current government. In order for our employees to prosper, whether it is in private industry or in government or workers in society or the economy at large, we need to have good labour relations. That is fundamental. We need labour relations that respect the interests of the workers and the employer in a fair and balanced manner, respecting due process and developed through real consultation.

Everything the government has done concerning labour relations since getting its majority has not been about striking balance. Instead, it has been about weakening the labour movement as much as possible in both the public and private sectors, from record use and methods used to impose back-to-work legislation to using—and one could say abusing—the private member legislation process as a backdoor way to introduce anti-labour legislation.

Bill C-377 was an obvious example. As we went through the testimony and the witnesses on that particular bill, we saw experts raise concerns about privacy and about the costs incurred, and not just by unions. The government tried to say that Bill C-377 was about union transparency by posting their actuals online. That would be a cost to not just the unions but also to administer it. This is the party of small government. The burden this would have placed on the CRA to administer such a mammoth undertaking would be significant to the treasury.

The government said it was all about openness and transparency. We threw a poison pill in there. We brought an amendment requesting it take the same rules it is asking of organized labour and ensure that our professional organizations play by them as well. Therefore, lawyers, doctors and chambers of commerce would have to post in the same manner as it is asking organized labour to. The Conservatives voted against that. It was not about openness and transparency. It was a poison pill. We did not think those organizations should have to post either. However, we knew that the Conservative government would vote against it because this was an attack on organized labour in this country.

Bill C-525 is now the second example. I expect we will see many more examples soon to come.

Never mind due process. Never mind fairness and balance. These terms mean nothing to the government. Political expediency at all costs is the motto across the aisle. Its fight with labour is based on an ideology that Canadians do not fundamentally believe in, an ideology that believes that if Canada is to prosper, the rights and benefits of workers must be sacrificed.

As a Liberal, I can say that I do not always agree with the labour issues. In past governments we fought with unions and we brought forward back-to-work legislation. However, we have always tried to respect due process. We know that the number one enemy for the Conservative government is labour. There is nothing in this bill that changes my mind. Giving federal employers the power to unilaterally declare parts of the public service an essential service, taking away its right to strike, and removing the option of unions to seek arbitration and settle a dispute to avoid disruption, stacks the deck unequally in the government's favour.

Balance in governing is an ideal every government should strive for, fostering trust and mutual respect as a goal. Labour relations are no different.

We have heard from FETCO, the organization that represents federally regulated industries. We heard from the CLC, which represents the people in those industries. They are both saying that the way to get this right is through consultation and consensus. They want the government to keep its nose out of their business. Instead, it continues to get engaged through private member legislation and aspects of these omnibus bills that continue to tip the scales. It is not just the unions or those workers who are saying this is unfair. The companies themselves see this as being unfair.

That is one of the problems we have with this omnibus approach to presenting legislation. If the government were confident about it, why would it not bring that forward to the House? It has a majority anyway. All we have to do is count. It will pass it anyway. Let us have the debate so it can tell us why it is doing that.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

moved for leave to introduce 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).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my private member's bill.

Bill C-525 would provide necessary amendments to the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent by way of a mandatory secret ballot vote based on a majority.

For far too long the federal legislation has lagged behind that of our provincial counterparts, and workers deserve the right to have a secret ballot vote to decide who represents them at the bargaining table.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)