Bill C-377 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations provide financial information to the Minister for public disclosure.

Taxation

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that Canadians and workers should have the right to know where their mandatory dues are being spent. That is something that all Canadians are asking for. That is why we continue to support Bill C-377, a reasonable bill to increase union transparency.

Bill C-377 was first introduced in December 2011, and it has been before the Senate for almost two years now. We support efforts to move the bill ahead.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Bill C-377 was widely criticized. Experts said it was unconstitutional to force unions to disclose their expenses. Unions are already accountable to their members.

Now we are told that the Conservatives are back at it and this time they are even going to try to limit the time for debate.

Does the government not find it ironic to call for more transparency from unions as it tries to pass a bill quickly and quietly?

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.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[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.

Motions in amendment

[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.

[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.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[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.

[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.

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?

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting Bill C-5 at second reading. Before beginning, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the extraordinary member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

The bill before us today is important. It is the result of negotiations that have gone on for a long time now, for more than 12 years in fact, between the governments of Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This bill seeks to remedy long-standing issues in existing legislation relating to health and safety standards in offshore areas, with regard to the oil and gas sector.

If passed, Bill C-5 will enshrine safety practices in legislation, and it will establish a framework that clarifies the individual and collective roles of the federal government, the provincial governments, regulatory agencies, operators, employers, suppliers and workers.

There are three key principles that underlie Bill C-5. First, the legislation relating to workplace health and safety must protect workers in offshore areas as well as workers on land. In addition, workers have the right to know, to participate, to refuse, to be protected from reprisal and to receive adequate protection. Finally, it is necessary to support an occupational health and safety culture that emphasizes shared responsibility in the workplace.

The NDP is proud to support Bill C-5, which will make it possible to establish a stronger system for the protection of workers, which the NDP has been demanding for a very long time now. Clearly, in our view, the bill still does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction just the same. That is why we are going to support it. We hope we will be able to work with our colleagues from all parties to improve the bill and ensure that in offshore areas the workers in the gas and oil sector will enjoy adequate workplace health and safety protection.

Quite frankly, I find it rather refreshing that the Conservatives are introducing a bill that provides greater protection for workers' rights. This is surprising. We are not used to seeing the government take this kind of approach—quite the opposite.

Indeed, since winning a majority, the Conservatives have introduced a growing number of measures to erode protections for workers and undermine their rights, which is very unfortunate. This represents a small change in direction. However, we should certainly not forget the various measures the government has taken to effectively undermine the protection regimes in place for our workers in various sectors.

I am particularly thinking of Bill C-377, an underhanded and mean-spirited bill designed to cripple Canadian unions by creating a massive bureaucracy they have to comply with, under the phony pretext of increasing the transparency of organizations. However, everyone knows full well that the Conservatives' real objective in introducing such a bill is to undermine the unions' ability to appropriately represent their members and defend their rights.

We know that the members opposite may find this concept difficult to understand, because in fact, none of them are participating in today's debate. We are talking about protecting workers and implementing very important measures to protect the people who work in the oil and gas industry—which the Conservatives care deeply about. However, they do not even bother to rise, to represent their constituents and defend the rights of workers.

However, they have no qualms whatsoever about introducing a growing number of measures to undermine the rights of workers in various industries. To be honest, this makes no sense at all.

I can mention another measure that attacked workers' rights, namely the special legislation passed by the Conservatives during the Canada Post lockout in June 2011. This legislation forced the employees back to work, obviously under worse conditions, while reducing their pensions and their protections, which were in fact acquired rights. The Conservatives gave themselves the power to gut certain measures that had been negotiated between the employer and employees. The Conservatives, however, clearly decided to circumvent all that.

This also brings to mind the recently tabled Bill C-4, which ironically weakens workers' health and safety protections. It also allows the minister to decide, unilaterally in a totally arbitrary way, which public services to designate essential, thus limiting the actions workers will be able to undertake to defend their rights or demand better working conditions.

Finally, who could forget how the Conservatives have gut the employment insurance system? They are leading a direct attack against seasonal workers all across the country. The Conservatives are not only failing Quebec and the eastern provinces: every part of the country will feel the impact of the employment insurance reform.

In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, not a day goes by without someone phoning or visiting our office because they are adversely affected by the EI reform, a reform the Conservatives pushed through without consulting the provinces, the territories or labour organizations.

All these examples illustrate the Conservatives' general attitude. Luckily, there is a tiny glimmer of hope now, since Bill C-5 would provide some workers with additional protections. Let us seize this ray of hope.

The NDP will support this bill. I must say again, though, how disappointed I am that the Conservatives are not taking part in the debate on Bill C-5. It may be that they have forgotten how debates work, or that they have no idea how to defend workers' rights, since they have never done it before. Why start now? Even though the Conservatives are introducing a bill about workers' rights, they are so close to big corporate bosses that they can no longer rise in the House and defend workers' rights, even when they should be standing up for their constituents.

NDP members will keep up the good work, doing their best to stand up for Canadians, including those the Conservatives should be standing up for. Today's debate is important. It is a shame so few government members are actually taking part in the debate.

Let us get back to Bill C-5. As I said earlier, this bill will improve the lives of offshore workers in some ways. However, it does have some shortcomings, the most significant of which is the fact that the government refused to create an independent, stand-alone safety regulator for the offshore zone. The governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have repeatedly called for this, but the Conservative government refused at every stage of the 12 years of negotiations.

In his June 2010 report, the hon. Robert Wells made several recommendations, including recommendation 29, which he believed to be the most important one in the report. The recommendation called for the creation of a new, independent and stand-alone organization to regulate safety issues in the offshore. This organization would have to be distinct and independent from all other bodies regulating offshore activities and would be solely responsible for regulating safety issues. Similar organizations exist in Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia. The United States is also considering setting up this type of body in the Gulf of Mexico. The Conservatives, however, have refused to even consider the idea. That is not how an NDP government would have handled things. We think it is important to create that kind of body. We will work toward that, which means that we will continue to pressure the government to create that kind of body, and we will continue to support our provincial partners as they work toward that goal, which is very important.

Various accidents and tragedies have occurred on our coasts, some of them fatal. Several of my colleagues have talked about that in the House, including my colleague from St. John's East. Despite everything, despite the Wells report and despite the fact that people from across the country have repeatedly asked the government for this, the government will not budge. Such an organization is not included in the bill and will not be created.

I think that is a shame because there are some measures in Bill C-5, measures that protect worker health and safety, that the NDP can support. We will be happy to do so.

Motions in amendment

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the bill and its amendments. I have to say that from my vantage point, it is interesting to see some of the strange bedfellows who have jumped in to support the member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about how he is confused by this. I find that statement to be accurate, largely because it seems that he is unaware of the content of the amendments that are being proposed here today and how they deal directly with the CBC and the reforms that are important and necessary.

It is worth highlighting, as well, that the opposition member, along with many in the opposition, voted to defeat the bill when it was sent to committee stage at second reading. I and others look forward to seeing how they will vote on the bill, and if that amendment is successful, how they will vote after that, if in fact they are sincere about the need to protect and report on how tax dollars are spent. I have my doubts, but we will see.

I am speaking today because when I spoke on the bill initially I called for some of the very amendments that are being put forward today. While I was supportive of the bill, I felt that the level for reporting of federal employees should not be the $180,000 that the member for Edmonton—St. Albert was proposing but in fact should be the same salary as a member of Parliament, which is approximately $160,000.

I still feel that way. I think that represents the top 2% of income earners in this country and it is a good level for Canadians to consider when they look at how their dollars are being spent and who is being paid what.

I will point out that in fact the bill is not out of line with legislation we see elsewhere in the country, albeit at the provincial level. For example, Nova Scotia and Ontario require the disclosure of the name, salary and job title for anyone making $100,000 or more from their respective provincial governments. These sunshine lists, as they are called, and rightly so because they do provide some insight for taxpayers, hold those governments accountable for the salaries given to the top bureaucrats, civil servants and anyone else who earns six figures or more per year from the government.

I should note as an aside that Manitoba, where the member for Winnipeg North is from, sets its transparency level at $50,000. My own province of New Brunswick has a disclosure limit set at $60,000. In addition, any employee of the Government of New Brunswick receiving in excess of $10,000 in retirement is also subject to public disclosure.

These acts across the country at the provincial level have worked and they have worked well to give taxpayers across the country a better idea of how governments are spending their money. I will note these numbers are reported annually and they have been a good thing for taxpayers and open government.

That philosophy represents my view on the bill. I will say, regardless of the outcome of the vote on the amendments of the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, I will be supporting the bill. We heard earlier from the parliamentary secretary. Broadly speaking I agree with what he was saying in terms of the need for transparency and accountability. I just happen to not agree with that member on where that threshold should be. Again, my view is that it should be $160,000. I said that when we had the first debate on the bill, and I continue to maintain that. I will be voting for the amendments as put forward by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

I am also going to do it for another reason. The other place, as we refer to the Senate, not so recently changed a private member's bill from the House of Commons, Bill C-377. One of the arguments they used for increasing the threshold level in that bill, which was a good piece of legislation and one I supported, was that they set the disclosure for union transparency at the same level, about $444,000, I believe.

I would like to send a message back to the Senate on that bill that we ought to work in a way that expands transparency, both for the public sector as well as for the unions.

That encompasses my thinking on the bill. Again, I find it interesting how the opposition has suddenly rallied behind the bill. I only wish that had more to do with the well-being of taxpayers across the country and not political opportunism.

I regret that my former colleague, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, no longer sits on this side of the House. Having said that, his bill would improve transparency within the Government of Canada. That is why I will vote in favour of it. I urge my colleagues on this side of the House as well as my colleagues on that side of the House to do the same.

[Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you for the invitation, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

We are very privileged in CUPE to represent 630,000 Canadians who work all over Canada in big and small cities and communities delivering front-line services like municipal health and education, to name a couple. Our members work very hard to provide quality public services, but they're taxpayers as well. On the income tax side, a little over $3 billion in income taxes are attributable to CUPE's members, along with a host of other taxes, as you'll know.

When we discuss these issues, as we did in convention in Quebec City a couple of weeks ago, as opposed to tax cuts people speak about restoring social programs such as medicare, employment insurance, and public pensions. The average CUPE full-time members--that's about 75% of the membership--if they have full-time jobs, make $40,000 a year, a quarter of what members of Parliament make. Quality public services are critical to their standard of living, just as they are to the vast majority of Canadians. They want tax fairness, but they don't want tax cuts at the price of needed public services.

As is clear from our submission in August sent to you, we disagree with those who want to take the country backwards by abolishing the employment insurance system. Involuntary unemployment is not a choice, and a public insurance system to cover it should not be a choice either. Even if people did self-insure, it would take eight years of premiums at current levels to save up the money for an average period of unemployment. Instead of further cuts, the EI program needs to be restored so that vulnerable Canadians are protected. Successive cuts mean that fewer than 40% of the unemployed are eligible for benefits. Eligibility is even lower for women and the most vulnerable. You might pay heed to the message from the Atlantic Maritime premiers of all political stripes and their comments on EI.

The Canada Pension Plan also needs to be enhanced, in our view, as provincial premiers recently reiterated, along with provincial finance ministers. Mr. Flaherty met with our Canadian Labour Congress executive in 2010 and talked about the timing of an enhancement, not whether it should be or not. Interestingly, now government argues that it needs unanimity amongst provinces to improve the CPP, but not to make constitutional changes in relation to the Senate.

Fewer than 25% of Canadians contributed to RRSPs last year, and only 32% of the national workforce has a workplace pension plan. Canada has the highest private investment fees in the developed world, five times those of the CPP administrative costs. Canada's CPP system is well run, fully portable, fully paid for by employees and employers, and is funded sufficiently for the next 70 years, according to the federal actuary. We need to build on this success through an expansion of the CPP.

There are many areas where government could and should improve efficiency and reduce red tape. PPP Canada and the $1.25 billion P3 Canada Fund should be eliminated. Canada is the only OECD country with a fund like this to subsidize privatization of public services.

Bill C-377 is back in the House, if you want to speak about red tape for a moment. It should be rejected by parliamentarians. This is vindictive legislation. Senator Segal described it as immature, ill-conceived, and small-minded. It would force every single labour organization in Canada to submit 24 schedules detailing every aspect of their finances and political activities, or face penalties of $1,000 a day. It will cost the federal government, as well as labour organizations, millions of dollars to implement, including an expansion of CRA staff.

Bill C-377 is also, in my view, extraordinarily hypocritical, given that MPs fully paid by the public purse only publicly disclose one schedule with 14 lines of information, and the government amended a private member's bill recently requiring disclosure of public sector salaries; only those over $444,000, quadruple the amount of the forced disclosure in Bill C-377 for labour officials, because labour dues are tax deductible.

Witness the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to go to court to get basic information about departmental spending and operations. Government could become much more efficient and effective in representing the needs and interests of all Canadians, if it changed its approach and acted transparently, accountably, fairly, and in the best interests of all citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[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.