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.

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.