Bill C-4 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015.
It also amends the Income Tax Act to remove from that Act the requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide annually to the Minister of National Revenue certain information returns containing specific information that would be made available to the public.

CANADA LABOUR CODE

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That is a little rich coming from the member across the way, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the Liberal Party still owes us $40 million that we have never seen a penny of.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix see a pattern from the government across the aisle, which says it wants to be transparent but makes changes to an aboriginal act with no transparency and brings forward this bill? Do you see a definite pattern there?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Just to clarify, I am sure the hon. member meant to ask, “Does the hon. member from Beauport see a pattern”, not me the Speaker because the members are speaking through the Speaker. I would just clarify that.

I just want to remind all members of the House this afternoon that they are speaking through the Speaker and not directly to other hon. members. I have noticed it with a few people during the afternoon.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

We are seeing a trend. When we ask the government opposite for transparency, it is never very clear. The Liberals are very opaque and would have Canadians believe they are listening to them. That is their thing and always will be. Average Canadians, our constituents, are asking us members and the government to be transparent, so it is particularly disappointing that we are not asking the same of the unions.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity for good debate throughout the day on this important piece of legislation. It is a priority, as the second piece of legislation the government brought forward, recognizing the importance of unions and of harmony. It is a good government initiative. We have seen the many benefits of it, when members have been afforded the opportunity to speak on it. We have had others say that it should be passed as quickly as possible, in particular, our New Democrat colleagues. We appreciate the support we are getting from the New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois, and others.

My question for the member is about our trying to rectify a wrong and how quickly she believes legislation should be debated or passed. Ultimately, we want members to be able to speak to it. I would like to get her thoughts on that.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As hon. members know, I am voting against this bill, which contains neither transparency nor accountability.

It is not surprising that the Liberals want to move quickly on this since the bill will make the legislation opaque. Canadians will no longer have access to information to help them determine how their union is using their money to vote against a political party at election time.

Unions' money is supposed to be used to help workers in difficulty, not to help election campaigns.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that we have completed five hours of debate. The 20 minutes of speeches followed by 10 minutes of questions and comments will now change to 10 minutes of debate followed by five minutes of questions and comments.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to take it personally that you cut the time just as I took the floor. I know that these things are done by time, and I will respect that, especially given the fact that you control the microphone.

Here we are today discussing Bill C-4. The first thing I want to do is compliment the government on responding to an important promise it made. I see my good friend ready to fall over, but I hope he hangs on, because I am not done. I would ask him to hold on and stay nearby.

I want to straight up compliment the government on bringing in Bill C-4 and unravelling much of the damage that was done by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. This was one of the priorities of the labour movement going into the election. Our party would have done the same, but it stands alone as a compliment to the government for doing this. It is the right thing to do. The Liberals are keeping their promise, and I will give credit where credit is due.

However, it does not end today in terms of standing up for labour. The government will get a great opportunity on Wednesday to stand up for labour by voting for Bill C-234, put forward by my colleague from Jonquière, our deputy labour critic. It is anti-scab legislation.

So far it has been kind of motherhood stuff, easy to do. Bill C-4, for those of us who are progressive in any way, is not exactly a big leap, but if the government really wants to show that it is listening to the labour movement and wants to make sure that the labour movement has the ability to do the things the government gives it so many compliments for, it will be fascinating to once again watch the Liberals do their dance around things like anti-scab legislation.

I raise this in the context of Bill C-4, because in our opinion, the government cannot say that it is the best friend labour ever had by virtue of one bill, when there are other things. One of those other things, to the best of my knowledge, happens on Wednesday, with the vote on the anti-scab legislation. Liberals have 48 hours to sit back and think about whether they want to get re-elected, whether they really meant what they said to labour, whether passing Bill C-4 is going to cut it, or whether people in the labour movement are going to say that it is a fine start, but it is just a start.

The anti-scab legislation that comes up Wednesday will be a really historic day for labour. The Liberals talk a good game, but as soon as that legislation is in front of them, they run and hide and vote against it. I have seen it in minority governments, when we could have passed that legislation, but the Liberals let us down. This time they could do it on their own. They will start out with 44 votes in the NDP caucus, because we have always stood for anti-scab legislation. If the government really wants to balance the tables, that is the way to do it. That will be interesting to see.

In the context of Bill C-4 going forward, it will be interesting to see what the government will do about the other labour issues that are still in front of it and that are facing workers today. For instance, precarious work is one of the biggest issues. How many of us have children and grandchildren who do not have full-time work and do not expect to have full-time work, let alone lifetime work? They are living contract to contract. They do not have big unions to help them organize and bargain collective agreements. They are out there on their own. They need the government to step in and provide them with some rights. What is the government going to do about precarious work? What is the government going to do about pay equity? What is the government going to do about part-time and precarious work.

Those are just a few of the issues, but there are many more coming forward. As much as it hurts my heart a bit, I would be more than glad to stand here and compliment the government again if it delivers on those things. We shall see what we shall see.

Speaking to Bill C-4, I have been listening in particular to the Conservatives, although I do not know why, because it always gives me a migraine when it comes to these kinds of issues.

They go on and on about the middle class. Who do they think really created the middle class, not just in Canada but in any other modern, mature democracy? In large part, that was the labour movement. Remember, child labour did not just come out of nowhere. There were people in the day who believed that was okay. We would not now. I like to think down the road anti-scab legislation will be seen as motherhood as the right to collective bargain. However, we still have that struggle in front of us right now.

I am reminded of something when I listen to the Conservatives talk about the damage they say is being done by repealing their two bills under Bill C-4. Let us remember. If we want to talk basics, let us go back to the 1940s, particularly in Ontario, which I know best, but it is a similar story across our country. That is when we had some of the major strikes that created and defined the labour movement. If we want to talk about guts, those people who went out on strike for their collective rights in those days put their jobs on the line. If we go back far enough, even meeting together could have gotten their heads busted open and/or they could have been thrown in jail.

Let me jump to a couple of things. The Rand formula in Ontario was a compromise between the need for a viable labour movement and a union that had the funds and structure to actually support and enforce the rights of members and to go into collective bargaining, and all that other stuff. They needed to do all of that, and in order for them to maintain that, while respecting the right of individuals to not necessarily agree with the philosophical direction of their union, the Rand formula said that workers did not have to join the union as a member, but they had to pay the dues. That was because they were getting the benefit of the negotiations that happened in their favour. Whether they supported the union or not, their wages went up, their health and safety was better protected, their vacation rights were extended, and they got those rights. However, they did not have to actually join the union, and the union had an obligation to serve all its members equally whether they joined or not.

That kind of foundation started to be blown apart with the two bills from the Conservatives, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. That is why Bill C-4 is so important. It brings us back into the realm of reality in terms of what the history of the labour movement is, and I cannot believe I am going to use this term, and the social contract that was agreed between all of society in terms of how we would manage this new entity that exists to give rights to ordinary people when they did not have them before. They get their rights by working and bargaining collectively, and ultimately, if they have to, withdrawing that labour. It is a free country. It is that basic.

I just want to end with a reminder. When I was first active in the labour movement in the 1970s, I was a young guy of 24, elected to be president of my union of 2,200 members. I can remember at that time, in the seventies, people were saying there was no need for the labour movement, that it was okay in its day but it was not needed now. I have been hearing that for decades. Just ask the employees at U.S. Steel, or any of the other companies where benefits are being lost and retirement rights that were fought for and earned for a lifetime are being taken away. Ask them whether they think the labour movement should still be there.

The government is making some changes to CPP. Make no mistake, if the Canadian labour movement was not front and centre on that fight, and every other fight that matters to Canadians, these things would not happen. That is why it is important that Bill C-4 carry, but that it only be the first step. There is much more to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the comments from the member. I believe that unions, and the movement as a whole, have done so much in developing us as a nation. It has become a very part of our fabric. We make reference to those social programs. Whether it is the pension type of programs or Canada health, there are many different pieces of legislation, not only labour legislation. One would argue that this is one of the reasons we need to do what we can to promote and encourage the development of Canada's unions, not recognize them as a negative thing, as many Conservatives do. The unions contribute far beyond just negotiations on behalf of Canada's workers.

I am wondering if he might want to just add a few more of his thoughts. I know he was running out of time very quickly, so I will sit down and he can answer the question or add any more comments that he would like to address to the House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I was not clear, that certainly was the overarching message, that we are very proud of Canada. We all talk about our values and how we project those values around the world. Make no mistake, those values are very much a result of the labour movement being in the forefront. Often they are negotiating for themselves, which is what the dues are for. They negotiate wages and vacations, and the things I mentioned.

However, that is not the whole story. Who do members think came up with the idea of paid weekends, paid maternity leave, or comprehensive health and safety legislation? All those things can be covered in a collective agreement. They do not need legislation. As for minimum wage, the labour movement does not need minimum wage in its contracts. I do not think there is a single contract that would dare call for even minimum wage, let alone anything less.

There is no benefit to them in this. It is a benefit to all workers in Canada. The understanding is that the Canadian labour movement has that broader view. They are not just isolated, taking care of themselves, and the heck with everybody else. They have always taken the broader view, asking what they can do to make life better for their members who are paying the dues but also what they can do, because they have the means, to help create those values and enforce those values, and bring in legislation and programs that give life to those values, that give us the very reputation on the international stage that we are all so very proud of.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech and comments, his passion, and all the years of advocacy he has done on behalf of working people in his riding.

I would like to give my colleague a few more minutes to comment on the theme of his speech around how this is a good first step, and what might be a second great step for the government to take. We have heard in some of the comments that we have a private member's bill coming up on Wednesday, in case anyone did not remember, around anti-scab legislation. We have heard comments from the other side that we cannot bring in changes to the labour code through a private member's bill, and that if we want to change the Canada Labour Code we have to do it tripartite.

I want to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the last time we looked at replacement workers. There was a review of the Canada Labour Code, but there was no consensus on it. Although there was evidence there that replacement workers definitely undermined the integrity of the bargaining process, that it really tipped it in favour of the employer, that particular commission could not come to a consensus on the evidence.

Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that this is the time when a government needs to step up, make a decision, and bring forward balance and fairness, when sometimes those processes do not get us to where we need to be?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Saskatoon West who is not just one of our rising stars in this new Parliament but is also our labour critic, and doing a fantastic job. I know she was there at the news conference, along with our colleague from Jonquière.

People seem to think that there is something equal in that when the workers go out on strike, management hurts too. No, when the employees go out on strike, the paycheques stop. They cannot pay the rent. They do not have money for their mortgages. They cannot pay the hydro. They cannot buy their kids presents. However, the people who run the companies, their cheques are still coming in just fine.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-4, which seeks to repeal both Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

By way of a brief background, Bill C-525 imposes a requirement for a secret ballot for union certification and decertification, whereas Bill C-377 imposes minimal public financial disclosure requirements on unions.

I stand in opposition to Bill C-4, because fundamentally I believe the bill is regressive legislation. It would be bad for workers, for union members, for taxpayers, for openness, for transparency, and for democracy. Indeed, the only group of persons who would benefit from Bill C-4 are a select group of union bosses.

There has been a lot of heated rhetoric from some union leaders, the Liberals, and the NDP over the years about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Therefore, I would submit that it is good to take a step back in this debate on Bill C-4 and look at exactly what Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 actually do.

Bill C-525 simply requires a secret ballot for union certification or decertification, nothing more and nothing less. It replaces the old card check system; a system that was rife for abuse and intimidation. Under the former card check system, union certification could take place no matter that a worker may have been intimidated by a co-worker or union leader to sign up for a union card. Under card check, certification could take place even if, for example, the majority of workers were unaware of certification efforts until certification was a fait accompli.

Bill C-525 simply ensures that on the question of deciding whether to be represented by a union, that the process is an open and democratic one made by secret ballot with the majority of support of workers. What could be wrong with that? After all, the secret ballot is fundamental to our democratic system of governance in Canada and around the world.

Unions use secret ballots to decide all manner of things. Unions use secret ballots in internal union elections. Collective agreements are ratified by secret ballots. Strike action is decided by secret ballot. Yet, on something as fundamental as to whether to be represented by a union, with the consequence, by the way, for a worker, in the case of certification, which one either pays mandatory union dues or one is fired, there was no choice, no secret ballot, and that was what Bill C-525 corrected.

In the context of Canada, Bill C-525 was hardly radical legislation. Indeed, some six provinces have passed similar legislation requiring a secret ballot for certification or decertification of a union. Many of those provinces have had laws on the books for some time. I think Nova Scotia, for example, has had a requirement for a secret ballot since 1977. Therefore, in that context, Bill C-525 is simply extending rights to federally regulated workers that are enjoyed by workers in a majority of provinces across Canada.

What about Bill C-377? What does it do?

All Bill C-377 does is require unions to report expenditures of $5,000 or more, or salaries of $100,000 or more.

Each year in Canada, unions collect about $4.5 billion in union dues. That is $4.5 billion with a “b”. Those union dues are tax deductible and consequently unions receive a tax benefit. The tax benefit that unions receive equals about $400 million a year. Of the billions of dollars that unions collect, unions funnel those billions of dollars collectively into various different causes and efforts.

Having regard for that fact, it seems to me to be more than reasonable to impose some basic minimal financial disclosure requirements on unions so that union members, who after all are mandated to pay union dues, and the broader public, who after all subsidize unions to the tune of $400 million, know where those dollars are spent and how they are allocated.

It is certainly nothing revolutionary when we talk about financial disclosure. As it has been pointed out in this debate today, charities, publicly traded companies, crown corporations, all levels of government have public disclosure and public reporting requirements. Why should unions be treated any differently? All Bill C-377 does is put unions on a level playing field.

For a government that talked so much about openness and transparency during the election and after, it really is ironic that it would choose to introduce Bill C-4 as one of its first pieces of legislation, a bill that takes away the right of a secret ballot from workers to decide whether to certify or decertify, a bill that takes away the right of workers to decide, without intimidation and without coercion, whether they want to be represented by a union, and a bill that takes away basic transparency measures on the billions of dollars in union dues that unions collect that are taxpayer subsidized and mandated from their members.

In short, Bill C-4 is antithetical to basic principles of openness, transparency, and democracy, and therefore needs to be defeated out of hand.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand why the Conservatives think unions are not transparent.

I was the treasurer for a union for 15 years, and I opened the books at every general meeting and put them on the table. All members could consult them. That was part of our statutes and regulations, which also enabled members to ask to consult the books at any time. There was no hiding; everything was completely open and transparent.

Earlier my colleague from Hamilton Centre said the same thing regarding his union. It is part of the unions' statutes and regulations. The openness is already there.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that some unions are transparent and open, and it is also true that some unions are not. I was not in the House during Bill C-377 in the last Parliament, but I do know, having followed it, that there was a considerable body of evidence that was presented at committee from union members who said that they could not get basic information from their unions.

All Bill C-377 does is make it open and transparent to everyone, including taxpayers, who after all subsidize unions to the tune of $400 million. It is common-sense legislation. It is good for workers. It is good for unions. It is good for taxpayers and it is good for transparency.

I do not understand really why the New Democrats would oppose such a good piece of legislation.