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.

Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me once again today to rise in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, to oppose a bill. I rise as a member of the official opposition to represent the values of the NDP, which is opposing a back-to-work bill for the seventh time since the Conservatives took power in 2006. This government is certainly a repeat offender when it comes to attacking workers, violating their legitimate rights and preventing them from exerting pressure, which includes going on strike.

In 2007 we had Bill C-46 for the continuation of railway operations, so this is not the first time. In 2009 we had Bill C-61 for the continuation of railway operations once again. In 2011 it was Bill C-6 to restore mail delivery. That bill targeted postal workers and letter carriers. Also in 2011 was Bill C-5 to continue air service for passengers. Then we had Bill C-39 and Bill C-33 in 2012, when the Conservatives once again created a power imbalance between the parties. They systematically took the employer's side and took away fundamental rights from unionized workers, who are well within their rights to exert pressure.

I asked the minister a question earlier that I believe is the key issue we are concerned about: do people still have the right to strike and use pressure tactics in Canada today? Does this Conservative government recognize that striking is a legitimate way of expressing the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining? The Conservatives seem to be completely ignoring that aspect, and I will come back to that later. The Supreme Court's recent decision has once again upheld this right that the Conservatives have been flouting, year after year, in Canada.

We have reached a point where workers have to ask themselves whether they will be bothering anyone if they exercise their right to strike. Will the government systematically intervene and break the rules to give the employer more power and additional arguments? The situation is always the same. If the employer knows for sure that it does not really have to reach an agreement because its friends in the Conservative government will intervene, violate rights and prevent its workers from striking, then what incentive does the employer have to negotiate in good faith and try to find a solution? That is the major problem.

They should give negotiation a chance.

We have a Conservative government that is always on the side of the employers and never on the side of the workers of this country. Workers have a fundamental right to exert economic pressure and strike if they need to in order to force employers to recognize problems and find solutions.

The minister just said that a negotiated deal is always better than an imposition of anything. Why is she imposing back-to-work legislation again and again? It is the seventh time that the Conservatives would do that since they were elected in 2006. It is a bad habit that they have; they take a side every time and break the balance of power between the two parties. We are saying to give the workers a chance to negotiate and to exert their rights.

The Minister of Labour just said that the recent decision of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the right to strike. I contradict that. I have a quote from a Supreme Court judge in that decision from a few weeks ago. Judge Abella wrote the following:

Where good faith negotiations break down, the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services is a necessary component of the process through which workers can continue to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their collective workplace goals. In this case, the suppression of the right to strike amounts to a substantial interference with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

This is exactly what the decision of the Supreme Court is about. It is about the fundamental right of workers to exert some pressure on an employer to improve their working conditions.

If those workers are refused the right to strike, that is an interference of their fundamental rights. This is exactly what the Conservative government is doing, again and again.

It is a sad day. The right to strike in this country is under attack. Unions were considered illegal organizations before 1872. We are asking whether the government wants to go back to that point in time. Every time that it can crush workers and their unions, the government does it systematically. It has done it with Bill C-525, Bill C-377, and Bill C-4, other attacks on health and safety issues.

It is a sad day for democracy. It is a sad day for the workers of this country. It is a sad day for the labour movement. Workers can count on the NDP to defend their rights because we will protect the freedom of negotiation and collective bargaining. This is a value that we on this side of the House cherish and care about. Workers know that in a few months they will have the opportunity to have the first social democrat, pro-union, pro-worker, government in this country. It is coming.

I would like to reiterate that the labour minister told us that the Supreme Court's recent decision had nothing to do with exerting economic pressure or the right to strike. However, Justice Abella indicated in the ruling given a few weeks ago that the suppression of the right to strike interferes with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, a process that provides an opportunity to get results.

In this case, it is extremely dangerous for the entire labour movement and for all workers to have a government that systematically takes the employer's side and tramples on workers' rights.

It is critical with the CP issue, and when there is a threat of back-to-work legislation hanging over their heads, to ask why the employer would negotiate in good faith. The employer knows it has good friends in power in Ottawa. The government will be on the employer's side and will force workers to go back to work. There is no reason for the employer to negotiate and look for a compromise.

Our concern is also the safety issue that is on the table for Canadian Pacific workers. It is a safety issue for everybody in this country: for the workers, first and foremost, of course, but also for everybody else. It is a question of the hours of work being too long, and extreme fatigue. We are talking about conductors who are driving freight trains that can be four kilometres long. We can imagine the consequences if the conductor is too tired to be aware of the dangers or everything that is going on.

This is not only the vision of the union. It is a problem that has been recognized by Transport Canada, and even by the companies. Transport Canada's own analysis of CP and CN employee scheduling records, from six different rail terminals across Canada, concluded that on the timing and length of each shift, assigned through an unpredictable on-call system, extreme fatigue was rampant.

In 4% of cases, employees were already extremely fatigued at the start of their shift because they did not have enough hours to sleep. It is a shame.

The government is not acting to correct that situation. Canadians should know that their safety is being put at risk by the government. We want that to change.

Forty-five percent of employees became extremely exhausted during work, and nearly all, 99%, were fatigued at least once during a month.

It was the same problem, the same issue, three years ago when employees of CP went on strike for a couple of days. After that, of course the Conservative government came here to vote on back-to-work legislation. The workers at that time were promised that the situation would be fixed: “Do not go on strike, we will negotiate and fix it.”

However, three years later, it is the same story. The same problems are still there. Extreme fatigue is still a problem for members of the Teamsters who are working for CP. Nothing has changed. We are back here again in the House of Commons, talking about back-to-work legislation.

My guess is that in three years we will be back again, because the issue will still not have been solved. There is no incentive for CP to solve the problem. The Conservatives are not helping. The Minister of Labour is not helping.

I think it is worth repeating, because the main issue in dispute here is not that workers want higher pay or want to extort more money from their employer. This is not about money. Incidentally, Canadian Pacific is an extremely profitable company. It has nothing to complain about; business is good. The discussions and debates are really about a matter of public safety. People need to be aware of that, because this is about the problem of too much overtime and the fatigue this causes. Canadian Pacific workers, the train operators, are not getting the rest they need, which leads to extreme fatigue.

What do the workers want? To be able to stop working and go home after 10 hours of work. All they are asking for is to not work more than 10 hours. What is this, the 19th century? Right now, train conductors have to work up to 12 hours straight before they can get a real rest. This is 2015; this is shameful. This Conservative government is doing nothing. In fact, it is actually helping rail companies perpetuate this practice.

Consider the potential consequences if a conductor driving a four-kilometre-long train is tired, does not have the necessary reflexes, and is unable to read the terrain or the dangers up ahead. Recent tragedies have shown us how important rail safety is. Everyone needs to know that this is a public safety issue and that the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.

A few minutes ago, I said that three years ago, CP workers, Teamsters members, went on strike for a few days on the issue of fatigue on the job and lack of breaks. The Conservative government forced them back to work. They were told not to worry, that this would be resolved, that there would be negotiations and recommendations would be made. Nothing was done. Today, in 2015, three years later, these same workers are going back on strike on the same issue of fatigue at work because nothing has been resolved. Now, we have another bill that is going to force them back to work again.

Should we allow the Conservatives to remain in power, I would not be surprised if people have to deal with a CP strike in three years. Unfortunately, if the Conservatives are still in power, they will again force them to go back to work. However, even Transport Canada recognized the issue of workplace fatigue for train conductors. It is not the Teamsters, the union, the CLC, but Transport Canada that is talking about this. Investigations of six different train terminals across the country led Transport Canada to conclude that the problem of extreme fatigue was rampant across Canada. In 4% of cases, employees are even extremely fatigued at the start of their shift, at the start of their work day, because they often do not get enough rest between two shifts. Fully 45% of employees are extremely tired or even exhausted while on the job. Forty-five per cent. Almost everyone, 99% according to Transport Canada, is tired at least once a month.

That has an impact on the workers. Obviously, it is bad for their health, their family life and their work. It puts everyone at risk.

The NDP does not want train conductors to experience fatigue at work. That is basic and straightforward. We do not understand why the Conservatives are still refusing to resolve this issue.

Even our neighbours to the south, the United States, where private enterprise is king and people despise regulations, have more regulations governing hours of work for rail company employees than we do. That is bizarre.

Why have the Conservatives never managed to fix this problem? We do not understand, but it puts huge swaths of our communities at risk.

Over the past five years, there have been at least seven accidents that, thankfully, did not cost any lives, but that happened because train conductors were tired at work. This is a real problem.

We have to find a solution, but we will not find a solution by preventing workers from exercising their right to take job action or go on strike. We know that because this is like groundhog day: it is the same old story over and over again.

I want to emphasize the fact that it is a real problem. The extreme fatigue of CP workers is real. Transport Canada has revealed that in the last five years, at least seven accidents or incidents were caused by fatigue of drivers or conductors of those trains. It is a real problem, but the government has no solution. Its only way to act is always ideological, always against unions, always against workers and against the safety of Canadians.

It is really sad. It is another case of the Conservatives going against international law. There is a labour organization in Switzerland that recognized that the right to strike is a fundamental right in modern societies. Once again, the government is going against the last decision of the Supreme Court and against international law.

On this side of the House, we think that workers can organize, defend their rights, and improve their working conditions. It is not the job of the government to oppose that, because it helps to build better communities. We always hear the Conservatives talk about the middle class and how they will defend the little guys of the middle class, but the middle class is, for the most part, a creation of the labour movement in this country and in all countries. Without the labour movement we would have no middle class.

If we want to defend the middle class, we must give the workers the tools to negotiate, to gain something in collective agreements, and to make sure that they are working in safe places. We must make sure that we do not put the safety of citizens of this country at risk.

Not only is the current federal government going against the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Saskatchewan case, but it is also going against regulations of the Geneva-based International Labour Organization, which considers the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining to be fundamental.

However, this is not surprising coming from an extremely ideological Conservative government that always responds in the same way when Canadian workers try to exercise their rights and improve their working conditions. This government pulls out the big guns and beats them back, telling them to shut up and get back to work. It does not want to listen to them; they are annoying.

What is important to this government is that companies continue to rake in profits, regardless of how or why and regardless of the rules, even if it makes people sick.

The Conservatives often like to say they are standing up for the middle class. However, the middle class is mainly a creation and a consequence of union struggles by workers who got organized, defended themselves at their workplace and negotiated better collective agreements.

If we are talking about the middle class, we must also talk about the tools that workers created to improve their situation. The NDP will always be there to stand up for workers and their families, for workplace health and safety and for public safety.

Unfortunately, again today, we see that the Conservative government is violating workers' rights and putting public safety at risk. I hope that all of us in the House will oppose this back-to-work bill—yet another one—and stand up not only for workers, but also for the middle class and public safety.

Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. We are trying to get him on his feet early in the session today. He is a little nervous, but with the support of his colleagues and the entire chamber, maybe we will get him up to say a few words.

As I said in my question for the minister, this debate gives us the opportunity to speak to the broader question, which is the continued growth in the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Since the Conservatives have taken over, we have seen a 66% increase in the number of Canadians who work for minimum wage. One million Canadians now work for minimum wage.

This should be of great concern to all of us. The quality of life for Canadians who go to work day in day out for the entire year and still live close to the poverty line should be of great concern to us as legislators, as members of Parliament.

To speak specifically about the motion brought forward by the NDP today, when we boil down the numbers, it does not really represent or impact a great number of people. It is more symbolic than substantive, and I would like to make a couple of comments around that.

According to the 2010 Statistics Canada survey of employees in federal jurisdictions, there are about 820,000 federal employees out of the 17 million who work in our country. According to that study, just 416 employees within federal jurisdiction earn the legal minimum wage, with 44% of these employees in companies with 100 or more employees. With 416 Canadians out of a workforce of 17 million, when we put that in perspective, again, the motion is a symbolic gesture more so than substantive.

I think we could engage in a debate that would impact more Canadians, because a number of Canadians continue to struggle from day to day, from paycheque to paycheque. This is a reality in a lot of kitchens across the country.

There was an all-committee study both in the House of Commons and the Senate. When we look at the recommendations those committees put forward on how to deal with and address poverty, some of them would have impacted a far greater number of Canadians, and probably would have helped a greater number of Canadians and Canadian families.

We should be looking at why the government has not been able to invest in developing the high-quality jobs and training opportunities, and why we continue to see that increase of people working in low-wage, precarious jobs.

After being home all summer, and I am sure many of the members in the House here would have heard the same story, I heard from seniors and those getting close to their senior years. They had seen the change in the OAS. Those who have worked their entire life in low-wage precarious jobs see the increase in the eligibility age for OAS from 65 to 67 as significant.

The opportunity to expand the reach and benefit of the levels of the working income tax benefit would go a far greater distance in helping a greater number of people. However, I see this as somewhat of a symbolic gesture. There has to be some type of balance in policy that upholds a societal benefit.

I agree that we need some kind of balance. I thought the proposal that was put forward by our leader yesterday on the hiring benefit that would allow us $1,280 for every hire, which for $225 million could produce 176,000 new jobs, would benefit business and Canadian workers. Those are more substantive issues that could be brought forward and could have a greater impact.

What we try to strive for, certainly within our party, is balance in labour relations. I do not think there has been any government in the history of the country that has thrown the balance between labour and management out of whack more so than the current government, from the excessive use of back to work legislation through changes to the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are pretty much outright attacks on organized labour. One of the keys to balancing labour relations is to have a fair process both by labour and management to have an opportunity to work out issues. For over 30 years, a tripartite approach has been in place.

In 2004, when we were still in government, the Liberal government used such a process for the review of part III of the Canada Labour Code undertaken by Harry Arthurs. His consultation process included direct input from labour and management representatives, cross-country public meetings, hearing from 171 different presentations and 154 formal briefings. He talked with management, with organized labour and community-based organizations. He talked to labour standard administrators and practitioners. That process resulted in Mr. Arthurs making a number of recommendations that maybe everyone might not have agreed on but at least they respected a balanced process.

One such recommendation, and the one that we are talking about today, was the reinstatement of the federal minimum wage rate. On the basis of his consultations with all stakeholders and the research, Mr. Arthurs believed that a federal minimum wage was justified. He captured the essence of a federal minimum wage in this comment, which I will read into the record. He stated:

—the argument over a national minimum wage is not about politics or economics. It is about decency. Just as we reject most forms of child labour on ethical grounds, whatever their economic attractions, we recoil from the notion that in an affluent society like ours good, hard-working people should have to live in abject poverty.

This motion deals only with federal workers and workers in federal industries. Therefore, those who are watching at home should know that this does not apply to those who work in the service industry flipping burgers or making beds, those in one of the million minimum wage jobs in our country. This applies to a very specific sector. Let us ensure that we temper the excitement and expectation for this motion with respect to an increase in the minimum wage.

What Mr. Arthurs said in his comments stand true. Under the work that he has done and put forward, this motion, although humble, is worthwhile supporting.

Employment

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can forget the Conservatives' employment insurance reform. It would be hard to come up with a more regressive policy. This unfortunate reform has weakened the economy in Quebec, the Maritimes and my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, which is having a hard time getting back on its feet.

It does not end there. Every day the Conservatives, who are the self-proclaimed job champions, are attacking the rights of Canadian workers and the gains they have made. They are attacking unions, labour-sponsored funds, the public service, and local services.

Allow me to provide some examples. Bills C-377 and C-525 were sad attempts at overhauling labour relations in Canada.

Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, was another opportunity for the Conservatives to quietly turns back the clock on decades' worth of struggles for decent working conditions and good jobs.

The cuts to Canada Post will further eat away at local services and wipe out quality jobs for Canadians.

In my riding, workers and unions are clearly saying that the summer will be hot and that the declaration of war issued by the members opposite will not go unanswered.

2015 starts now.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague for his question. I have always admired the work he has done in the House, and I hear glorious accolades for him from his constituents as well.

From my teaching perspective, I think 13 years to get to this point is really slow. However, we got here. If we were in continuous progress, we are at the halfway mark, but we still have a long way to go.

I actually was flabbergasted that we did not have this done a long time ago. Since I have been a parliamentarian, I have seen the government with a bill it wants to railroad through the House, as it did with Bill C-525, which was a union-busting bill, so to speak. It actually managed to ram that through with only about two and half hours of witness testimony and an hour of clause by clause. It then changed the orders so as to have it debated last night so it could be pushed through.

It is really about will. I am glad to see that the Conservatives have that will today to debate this, but it is long overdue. Even if it is long overdue, I am glad that it has reached this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and speak to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.

Hearing long titles like this one, we are often left wondering what the bill is really about. This legislation is a culmination of a number of attempts to address safety for workers in offshore situations.

Most Canadians who work on land just take the right to refuse unsafe work for granted, but we should not, because workers fought for the right to refuse unsafe work for many years. We have the labour movement to thank for its advocacy in this area.

As we have learned more about occupational health and safety, we have learned that it is a shared responsibility, that employees have to be integrally involved in developing policies and practices, and that enforcement has to be there as well. We are pleased that this legislation would address those aspects and would give offshore workers the right to refuse unsafe work.

This legislation is a result of co-operation and collaboration between partners, and by that I mean the Atlantic provinces and the labour movement. Labour movements in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia worked closely together to make sure protective regimes would be put in place for offshore workers in the oil and gas industry. It is mind-boggling that such a regime did not exist already, because a worker is a worker. If workers are covered when their feet are planted on the ground, then why would workers in offshore situations not be covered?

We have had a number of tragic disasters, and those disasters have made us as a society and at different levels of government look at where our legislative framework is to protect those who go to work.

Offshore workers are like workers everywhere else. They get up in the morning, some in the evening, and they go to work to make a living. There is every expectation on the part of those workers and the families they leave at home that they will return home safely. Once this legislation is enacted, our offshore workers will have the right to refuse unsafe work, and I am pleased about that.

This legislation reminds me of Bill C-525, the legislation we were debating last night. I can see direct links between the two bills. In Bill C-525 we see a not-so-secretive attack on organized labour and on workers' ability to organize.

It has taken workers in the offshore industry many years to get rights that other people already have. Having been a teacher for most of my life, I know how hard it was to get an occupational health and safety framework implemented in the school system for teachers as well.

I am also reminded that there is often a disdain by my colleagues across the way for working people who have chosen to be part of a collective called a union. However, I am very proud of the achievements of the union movement.

Looking back to the 19th century, we can see the reason that unions were founded. It was to provide some balance because workers' lives were in danger. Hands were being caught in machinery, and amputated. Young children were being sent into the mines and terrible accidents were occurring. People were being forced to work incredibly long hours. It was at that time, out of desperation, that workers decided that singly they could not bring about change. If they wanted to bring about meaningful change, they had to hold hands and become a collective.

That kind of advocacy for the rights of workers, for a right to a decent living, for the right to work in safe workplaces and ensure the maximum safety, are all things that the union movement is still advocating for today. It is not just for the unions themselves, but for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would want each and every worker in Canada to have occupational health and safety protection and the right to refuse unsafe work. If we do not have that, we are left in a very vulnerable position.

When we look at the legislation, the overall responsibility to carry out and implement a lot of it is put in the hands of the operator. Therefore, I was pleased to hear that the government had paid some attention, as I had hoped, to recommendation 29 of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador public inquiry into offshore helicopter safety, which was conducted by the Hon. Robert Wells.

This inquiry spent a lot of time listening to experts, and as much as I know that my colleagues across the way have an allergy to data, science, informed decisions, and listening to experts, I was quite impressed by the recommendation put forward by Hon. Wells. It brought home to me that we are once again passing a piece of legislation that is a step in the right direction and will enshrine the right to refuse unsafe work. However, at the same time, we are not writing legislation for yesterday. We should be writing legislation that is current for today, tomorrow, and the next few years.

The Hon. Robert Wells put forward what I would say are fairly reasonable options: the best case scenario and the one that would be acceptable if the best case scenario is not taken up by government.

In June 2010, the Hon. Robert Wells wrote:

I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report.

Recommendation 29 demanded that a new independent and stand-alone safety regulator be established to regulate safety in the CNL offshore. That seems fairly clear. Then, Justice Wells, because he knows what parliamentarians can be like, wanted to give people a choice and not an ultimatum. It was not this or nothing.

He came up with a second option. The alternative option was that the government create a separate autonomous safety division of C-NLOPB, with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters. It was also to establish an advisory board composed of mature—that is often questionable—and experienced persons, who are fully representative of the community and unconnected with the oil industry. He also recommended ensuring that the safety division would have the mandate and ability to engage expert advisers, either on staff or as consultants, to assist it in its regulatory tasks.

The report further explains that the safety regulator should be separate and independent from all other components of offshore regulation and should stand alone, with safety being its only regulatory task. As I said, with a government that has an allergy to data, science, and informed decision-making, this legislation fails to meet either of those standards set out in that report. It is a report, by the way, that was not written overnight. It was well researched. As I said earlier, it is a shame that it was not included in the legislation.

We are supporting this piece of legislation because it is moving in the right direction. However, once again, I am going to make a plea to my colleagues across the way that they amend this legislation, even now, and maybe take the time so that it has some life beyond, rather than providing just the absolute minimum. I will say, though, that this is better than nothing.

We as the NDP are very committed to saying that when we form government we will continue to work with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Even before we form government, we are committed to further strengthening worker health and safety by working towards the creation of an independent, stand-alone safety regulator. That is the right thing to do.

I have talked about the government having an allergy to data and not listening to the experts. I live in the beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta. Unfortunately for us, in my riding we have had a very high number of homicides, and some have really touched members in my community.

Once again, when we look at the numbers and see how under-policed we are compared to ridings that surround us, in talking about facts and science it makes sense that we need that extra policing on our streets right now. I have a growing number of constituents who are becoming very disillusioned. They are asking how much more information, facts, and experience they have to share with the decision-makers for them to realize that we have a community that needs support and additional policing.

When we are talking about offshore on the east coast, it also brings home to me that we have this beautiful geography. We are a country that spans, not from coast to coast, but from coast to coast to coast. On the west coast we are just as concerned about our safety offshore as we are about worker safety on land. We are also very concerned about our environment and the impact of offshore exploration on the environment. We have to make sure that we have rigorous environmental protections in place.

Being a port city, Vancouver recently experienced a work stoppage for almost a month, which had quite an impact on the community. I had businessman after businessman coming to tell me about the impact.

I also met with the truckers, who were telling me about the impact on them with the terrific wait periods that existed. Compared to 2005, when they could do 5 runs, now they can do maybe two; if they were lucky, they could do three runs. They told me how their income level had gone down but their expenses had gone way up.

Just as it has taken the federal government so long to act on this piece of legislation, in a similar way we saw the federal government being remiss in not facilitating negotiations long before the strike started. Every party realized what the issues were, and it was the government that could have facilitated a much earlier resolution. It could have negotiated a settlement to ensure we did not have the economic impacts on both the business community, the transloading companies, and the drivers and their families.

Earlier today I heard about the wheat that is backlogged. In my riding, we ran out of storage space. Now I am very concerned for the transloading companies that move lentils, chickpeas, and all legumes, as well as all the wheat. They are going to be facing some extraordinary challenges in the near future.

I do want to congratulate the parties, the truckers, the transloading companies, and the Port, for the resolution to the strike that would never have taken place if the government had played an active role at the beginning. Whether it is about health and safety issues, other working conditions, or the ability to make a decent living and feed their families, workers have found there is power in working together and being part of a collective.

We pass bills that go into law, but unless there is enforcement, they remain words on paper. My plea to my colleagues across the way is to ensure that with the moves we have made in the right direction for worker safety in the offshore industry, especially with the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord, that we at least ensure we have implementation measures in place that are not just “we are asking you to”. For implementation to happen, there has to be real enforcement, and real enforcement has to have real consequences for those who do not ensure that the safety measures are in place.

Being a teacher, an important part of occupational health and safety is education. That is the education of workers. No occupational health and safety culture is complete without employers and workers receiving a thorough education and both of them working collaboratively. However, the power ultimately lies in the hands of the employer to ensure those conditions. All the worker has is the right to refuse unsafe work.

The enforcement and education are critical components of any successful occupational health and safety program. Having worked with a very successful one in B.C., I know that empowering the educational component can be successful.

I am certainly hoping that the operators who are being charged with these responsibilities will develop an educational program and also look at real enforcement.

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.

Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Income Tax Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the House for allowing unanimous consent so that I could take part in this debate, which was noted by my friend and colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He was not sure whether it was because the House had anticipated my comments so much and were so looking forward to what I had to say, or more so that they liked to limit my friend and colleague from Kings—Hants to 10 minutes. Whatever the rationale was, I appreciate the House allowing me to go forward.

I want to speak about the principles behind some aspects of the legislation. One of the comments that the parliamentary secretary mentioned when he led off the debate today was that it was not strange to have a bill of this size with so many components in it. It is 321 pages, but he said the last four bills have been of similar size.

The last four bills have been presented by the same government and concerns have been raised. Certainly the opposition parties voiced their disapproval with such a practice on those four occasions, but he was able to justify the bill by saying the last four were presented in a very similar manner. That would be like an NHL coach saying, “I didn't make the playoffs the last four years, but now you decide to fire me in my fifth year”. The unfortunate part is that maybe we do not get an opportunity to fire the government for another couple of years, but that day too shall come.

I want to talk about what was mentioned by my colleague from Kings—Hants with regard to some of the aspects of this piece of legislation as it deals with changing labour relationships in this country. I will read these into the record.

I want to talk about principles that a government must respect in creating legislation, such as what we are debating today, that affects millions of Canadians. In particular, it affects over 1.2 million hard-working Canadians who work in federal industries and the public service.

For Canadians, the affected workers in particular, to believe in these laws, they must have faith and trust in their government. However, trust and respect does not come with some gun pointed to their heads. Governing is about striking balance, a balance between things such as the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and the other, between social and economic values, and between the interests of the employer and the employee. Part of figuring out that balance is listening to people who may not agree with us and respecting the principles of fairness and due process when creating laws that fundamentally affect them. I do not believe there has been a government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance and replaced due process and fairness with political expediency than the current Conservative government.

The amendments to labour legislation in the bill are just another example of this. The government is using this omnibus budget bill as a back door to making major changes to the rules affecting collective bargaining in the public service. These changes, without doubt, are being made to weaken the public service unions by stacking the deck in favour of the employer and in this case, the employer is the government.

This type of behaviour only breeds mistrust and disrespect. It is not how we as individuals would expect to be treated and it simply lessens the institution of government when it continues out of control as we have seen under the current government. In order for our employees to prosper, whether it is in private industry or in government or workers in society or the economy at large, we need to have good labour relations. That is fundamental. We need labour relations that respect the interests of the workers and the employer in a fair and balanced manner, respecting due process and developed through real consultation.

Everything the government has done concerning labour relations since getting its majority has not been about striking balance. Instead, it has been about weakening the labour movement as much as possible in both the public and private sectors, from record use and methods used to impose back-to-work legislation to using—and one could say abusing—the private member legislation process as a backdoor way to introduce anti-labour legislation.

Bill C-377 was an obvious example. As we went through the testimony and the witnesses on that particular bill, we saw experts raise concerns about privacy and about the costs incurred, and not just by unions. The government tried to say that Bill C-377 was about union transparency by posting their actuals online. That would be a cost to not just the unions but also to administer it. This is the party of small government. The burden this would have placed on the CRA to administer such a mammoth undertaking would be significant to the treasury.

The government said it was all about openness and transparency. We threw a poison pill in there. We brought an amendment requesting it take the same rules it is asking of organized labour and ensure that our professional organizations play by them as well. Therefore, lawyers, doctors and chambers of commerce would have to post in the same manner as it is asking organized labour to. The Conservatives voted against that. It was not about openness and transparency. It was a poison pill. We did not think those organizations should have to post either. However, we knew that the Conservative government would vote against it because this was an attack on organized labour in this country.

Bill C-525 is now the second example. I expect we will see many more examples soon to come.

Never mind due process. Never mind fairness and balance. These terms mean nothing to the government. Political expediency at all costs is the motto across the aisle. Its fight with labour is based on an ideology that Canadians do not fundamentally believe in, an ideology that believes that if Canada is to prosper, the rights and benefits of workers must be sacrificed.

As a Liberal, I can say that I do not always agree with the labour issues. In past governments we fought with unions and we brought forward back-to-work legislation. However, we have always tried to respect due process. We know that the number one enemy for the Conservative government is labour. There is nothing in this bill that changes my mind. Giving federal employers the power to unilaterally declare parts of the public service an essential service, taking away its right to strike, and removing the option of unions to seek arbitration and settle a dispute to avoid disruption, stacks the deck unequally in the government's favour.

Balance in governing is an ideal every government should strive for, fostering trust and mutual respect as a goal. Labour relations are no different.

We have heard from FETCO, the organization that represents federally regulated industries. We heard from the CLC, which represents the people in those industries. They are both saying that the way to get this right is through consultation and consensus. They want the government to keep its nose out of their business. Instead, it continues to get engaged through private member legislation and aspects of these omnibus bills that continue to tip the scales. It is not just the unions or those workers who are saying this is unfair. The companies themselves see this as being unfair.

That is one of the problems we have with this omnibus approach to presenting legislation. If the government were confident about it, why would it not bring that forward to the House? It has a majority anyway. All we have to do is count. It will pass it anyway. Let us have the debate so it can tell us why it is doing that.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my private member's bill.

Bill C-525 would provide necessary amendments to the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent by way of a mandatory secret ballot vote based on a majority.

For far too long the federal legislation has lagged behind that of our provincial counterparts, and workers deserve the right to have a secret ballot vote to decide who represents them at the bargaining table.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)