Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill, so that I can make some comments.
I will say right off the bat that I will focus on one specific part of the bill, which reads as follows:
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.
As a result, other provisions and other legislation may also be amended, because the consequences are far-reaching.
I will not hide the fact that this is quite a concern. I will use my experience on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak to the principle of the appearance of justice, which is so important in our legal system. It lets Canadians trust that institution and be confident that, by using all the recourse available to them, they will be able to get a ruling that is consistent with the law and with justice.
There is also a balance to be achieved, and there are very important principles to uphold when it comes to negotiations. There really needs to be a clear balance, and real dialogue and discussion among the parties involved in the negotiations. There is no denying that this is a sensitive issue and something that is difficult to achieve. Division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 poses a direct threat to this process.
This is a very serious problem. I feel, and I am sure that all of my colleagues do as well, that this aspect alone is reason enough to oppose this bill.
I will now talk about my personal experience. After all, my Conservative colleagues love to share their life experiences about much bigger issues. I will talk about the experience my late father had as a member of Local 9 of FTQ Construction's Fraternité nationale des charpentiers-menuisiers.
My father worked for 12 years as a union activist, trying to convince the guys to come to the union's general meetings. At the time, most construction workers were men. He told them every time that it was important for them to participate. Indeed, their participation was very important because it made the decisions taken at those meetings much more credible.
During the second half of his career as a carpenter-joiner, my father spent most of his time as a foreman or superintendent responsible for job sites. He was around in the 1960s, a difficult period for the construction industry when there was much less protection and safety was a major issue. As a manager, he was very concerned about the safety of the people he supervised.
This week, there have been some very hot days where people could easily go without a jacket. That is understandable, but imagine how unpleasant it must be to have to wear a hard hat on a work site on a hot summer's day. Unfortunately, hard hats hold in a lot of heat.
My father's approach was very simple. He asked the worker to put on his hard hat because it was important. If the worker protested because it was too hot out, my father insisted. He would walk away once the worker had put on his hard hat. However, if my father came back that same day to find that the same worker had once again taken off his hard hat and left it on a wall or somewhere else, my father would get in that worker's face. He would get really angry because he was responsible for the job site and the physical safety of the worker who, unfortunately, was unintentionally putting his life and health at risk.
That is one of the union movement's greatest achievements. Recently, we have again been hearing about how workplace safety is still a major problem even though there has been significant progress. A single worker has very little power to stand up for his rights against a huge organization, particularly if the management or the owner is firmly opposed to that. There must be a balance of power to deal with these issues.
Also quite recently, there have been many examples of people getting together to achieve a common goal. I am thinking of chambers of commerce and groups created in response to our campaign against excessive credit card fees. There are groups of restaurant owners and corner store owners. National groups bring thousands of small businesspeople together. Getting together for these reasons is a very noble thing. There are also seniors' groups.
I am a Knight of Columbus, a member of the La Nativité council in Beauport. The K of C is yet another excellent association dedicated to reaching out to others and helping the less fortunate. Churches of all faiths bring people together for spiritual and community reasons. That, too, is noble.
In the business community, people get together to form corporations to launch for-profit and non-profit businesses, companies with share capital or investors who may decide to risk their capital on a reasonably safe venture that could return a lot. That is yet another example of a noble reason for people to get together.
Why is the government, why are Conservative elected representatives, so intent on stigmatizing perfectly legitimate groups, such as the union movement? That makes absolutely no sense. They have provided no justification here in the House or elsewhere for their visceral hatred of the union movement and their desire to work against it. The government is certainly right to address problems. There have been very disappointing examples of obvious wrongdoing in some unions. However, does that merit such an over-the-top, unreasonable attempt to crush the union movement? Absolutely not.
While the government is at it, it needs to do something about the flagrant abuses by mining companies, for example. Canada is a haven and refuge for mining companies, which is a disgrace. After what has happened elsewhere in the world—in Latin America and Africa, for example—the government could choose to shut down numerous large companies. It could put them under guardianship to set them back on the right path. Obviously, the managers and shareholders are not able to do the right thing.
The other reason, the compelling argument that keeps us from supporting the government on part 3, division 17, is that it gives the Treasury Board president the means to intervene in bargaining.
How can we trust a man who kept a slush fund to look after friends in his riding and who protected the millionaires, with their teak decks and fancy houses, who live on certain lakes?
It all happened in the context of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, when the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tried to convince us that only commercially used waterways would be affected. It is quite possible that a number of agreements were worked out on those teak decks. Nevertheless, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and this opens the door to terrible abuse. It is an absolute disgrace to trust this man with such privileges.
I would like to conclude by talking about scripture. It is important to me, and I try to follow in Christ's footsteps. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called forth the children and comforted them. He spoke about people who take advantage of others, but he did not hesitate to drive merchants out of the temple with a whip. I will follow his example.
I am completely, 100% opposed to this bill. The government will find me, along with my colleagues, blocking its way, because of this one point.
