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

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that we have definitely heard some things in the House over the last few days of debate on this bill that have really made it clear that the Conservatives in the previous government were anti-worker, anti-union, and really tried to impose legislation that would break unions across this country.

I am proud to stand with my counterparts across the aisle and down the aisle in support of repealing both of these really regressive, terrible, anti-worker pieces of legislation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am personally insulted by some of the inclinations shown here that this is an attack on transparency and accountability.

I spent thirty and a half years as a union member. In fact, I was a union president. One of the things our members often talked about was the issue of accountability and transparency. It is the cornerstone of democracy. It is the cornerstone of democracy in this House and in this country. It is also the cornerstone of democracy within the labour movement.

What does the hon. member have against another layer of accountability and transparency within the labour movement? My members did not have a problem with it. I do not understand why she would.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be curious to find out if the membership that the MP was formerly in charge of as a president still feels that way today. Would they like the public to have access to all of their books, to the tune of the millions of dollars it would cost the taxpayers?

Unions are transparent to their membership. That is what is required inside a union. We do not have a responsibility to provide that information, just as other organizations do not either, as was mentioned earlier in regard to the bar association.

This attack on unions, and it is an attack on unions because no other associations or organizations were mentioned when this bill was brought forward, is undemocratic at its very roots.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' comments are that this is all about accountability, openness, and transparency.

We made an amendment to the bill, that we should go beyond organized labour to the employers' groups, chambers of commerce, bar associations, and anyone who gets a tax deduction. We wanted to open it up, because if it is good for organized labour, then it would be good for everyone. We put forward that amendment to the bill, and the Conservatives voted against it.

I want the member to know that we stand with the NDP. We recognize that those two pieces of legislation were nothing but a deliberate attack on organized labour. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member across for the support. It is not just a matter of the the NDP and the Liberals opposing this piece. There was widespread opposition from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, the NHL Players' Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry, amongst others.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to ask for the support of the House for Bill C-4, which would repeal the legislative amendments enacted by Bills C-377 and C-525 of the previous Parliament.

I am proud to call York Centre home to a large number of businesses and manufacturers. I have met people and heard stories from businesses that started in their garages and have grown into international brands. These range from storefronts to factories, many of which are local success stories that now have national, and even international, reach.

Not so coincidentally, York Centre is also home to a large number of unions and unionized workers. These are employees across a broad spectrum, from construction and the skilled trades, to factory workers, administrative employees, teachers, and public servants. It is no coincidence that my riding is home to so many thriving businesses and labour organizations. Both go together and have to worth together for our economy to thrive.

As we have stated before, our government believes that fair and balanced labour relations are absolutely essential for the prosperity of Canadian workers and our country's economic growth. Both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly, in safe and healthy work environments.

It is our labour laws that help ensure there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. However, in the previous Parliament, a number of pieces of legislation were passed that changed our labour relations system. Bills C-377 and C-525, private members' bills supported by the previous government, upset the delicate balance between unions and employers.

Under Bill C-377, labour organizations and labour trusts are required to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with details of their assets, liabilities, income and expenditures, as well as salaries paid to their officers, directors, and other specified employees. They are also required to provide information on the time spent by officers on political lobbying and non-labour relations activities. This information is then to be made publicly available on the CRA's website.

This creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Under the Canada Labour Code, unions in federally regulated workplaces, as well as employers' organizations, are already required to provide their financial statements to their own members, free and on demand. It is worth noting that eight provinces have similar financial disclosure requirements.

Why should unions be subject to these onerous and redundant reporting requirements, requirements that do not apply to other organizations that also benefit from similar status under the Income Tax Act, such as professional organizations?

Then there is the issue of this information being publicly available. Publishing this information on the CRA's website means that employers will have access to key union information, including how much they have set aside in a strike fund. It is not difficult to see how this puts the unions at a serious disadvantage during the collective bargaining process.

Essentially, Bill C-377 imbalances the system. This brings me to Bill C-525, which also tilts the scales in favour of employers.

Prior to Bill C-525, federally regulated private sector workers who wanted to organize could do so in a relatively simple and straightforward manner. If a majority of employees signed a union card, they could go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, show it the signed union cards, and the CIRB could certify them as the bargaining agent for those workers. If less than a majority of employees signed union cards, but at least 35% did, a certification vote could be held. The card-check system worked well for many years, so why was it replaced by a system that many stakeholders, such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, feel is less efficient and more vulnerable to employer interference?

Under Bill C-525, unions are required to show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote, making it more difficult to get the right to vote. In addition, even when the majority of workers have clearly demonstrated their support by signing union membership cards, a secret ballot vote must be held before they can be certified as a bargaining agent.

The card check system, which is based on obtaining majority support, is no less democratic than a mandatory vote system. It has also proven to be an efficient and effective way to gauge employee wishes. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees, this two-stage process essentially forces those in favour of a union to vote twice. By slowing the process, the employer has the opportunity to intimidate, harass, and unethically induce employees to vote no. Not all employers would attempt to prevent unions from organizing. However, there are examples of those who have.

The bottom line is that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 put unions at a disadvantage and make it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize in the first place.

Why would we want to make life more difficult for unions and the workers they represent? We recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadians. As Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff stated, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were “nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers”.

The federal labour relations system used to be respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of genuine and proven consultative and consensual processes that had been followed for decades with respect to amending the Labour Code. As I mentioned earlier, the prosperity of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy relies on those same fair and balanced labour relations. Repealing the legislative amendments made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will help restore that balance.

I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues in the House will support Bill C-4 so we can achieve this.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for York Centre spoke very eloquently about the balance between labour and employers. A cornerstone of that balance is that in the rare instances where the collective bargaining process breaks down, there is economic pressure on both sides. In a strike or lockout, the employees do not receive their salaries and the employer has to do without their labour. That balance is disrupted if the employer can just bring in replacement workers. Therefore, anti-scab legislation is a very important component of preserving that important balance between labour and management.

I wonder if the member for York Centre could clearly commit to saying that the new Liberal government will introduce and pass anti-scab legislation.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill on the table today, Bill C-4, deals in particular with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and speaks to a fair and balanced relationship between both sides, which is crucial when it comes to collective bargaining. That is the issue on the floor of the House today, that is the commitment that our government has made, and that is the commitment that we will be upholding when we vote on this bill next week.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard two different Liberal members today talk about the fact that a secret ballot would mean an extra level of red tape in order for unions to certify. Does he believe democracy is just red tape?

Also, if the Liberals are concerned about privacy, if that is the one thing they are camping on, why would they not simply amend the legislation to deal with any privacy issues they feel is a concern and allow workers the capability of a secret ballot and the ability to see the books when they want to see them?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the process used by the previous government to bring in Bill C-525 was undemocratic. The Conservatives did not go out into the community, a community like York Centre, to consult with organizations and employers to determine what the implications of such an act would be. The bill was rammed through in a process not supported by either side, management or labour. It unbalanced the delicate scales in the labour relations process. That is why the government is committed to standing up for the rights of workers and ensuring that Bill C-4 repeals those two bills.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, we often talk about social trust, in other words, the good faith relationship between the members of a society to advance that society. In the context of labour law, there is a good faith relationship between the employer and the employees to advance the common interests of the business. Does my colleague see the bill introduced and passed by the previous government as a negation of social trust?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the year and a half that I met and engaged with my constituents in York Centre, on many occasions I had the opportunity to discuss with members of organized labour and employers the issue that the hon. member speaks about, the trust and working relationship that is essential in our economy to ensure the labour relations process moves forward and is built on a foundation of trust. That is what these two bills that we seek to negate do.

As our government has said, we will stand all the way through to repeal them using Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address important issues facing the chamber.

I look at the bill before us as a bill that would right a wrong. The previous government made a mistake when it brought in a private member's bill through the back door, legislation that was to make a political statement which was to the detriment of the union movement in Canada. However, it goes far beyond just the union movement, as it affects every aspect of our economy, which is something I will take a bit of time to highlight.

In my former years as a member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, I had the opportunity to be engaged in a number of different debates regarding unions and labour legislation. In fact, in 1988, we had our most controversial days inside the Manitoba legislation, and it was surrounding labour legislation.

Some might recall the use of the tool called the “final offer selection”. It was brought in by a New Democratic government. When the New Democratic government fell, it was replaced with a Conservative government, and one of the first things on its agenda was to get rid of the final offer selection tool.

I recall very vividly how much resistance there was to that. When we went into committee, there was well over 100 people, from all different sectors of society, who wanted to contribute. We met for hours and hours, sometimes until three or four o'clock in the morning on several evenings. That was my baptism to the whole issue of labour relations. Through that, I got a better appreciation of the importance of getting it right, which is something the previous government failed to do.

If the Conservatives recognized the importance of labour relations, they would never have attempted to introduce, through the back door of the House of Commons, through a private member's bill, labour legislation that was inappropriate. The government had a choice back then, and it chose confrontation with organized labour in Canada.

I truly believe that the Conservatives do not understand or appreciate the valuable work that unions not only do today but have done in the past, and the important role they will have into the future. This is something that we in the Liberal Party have always respected. We understand and value the contributions that unions make and will make.

When we take a look at Bill C-4, members should be aware that it is here because of two private members' bills, as has been talked about extensively here today. We heard government members say how wonderful those private members' bills were. We heard New Democrats say that they were bad bills. We also heard government members point out why those two pieces of legislation should never have seen the light of day.

To give a different perspective, if the previous Conservative government truly wanted to change labour legislation of that nature, it should have brought the bills in the form of government legislation, much like we see here, with the new Prime Minister and minister responsible for the labour act. That is what should have happened, but it did not happen that way.

Members asked what the result was of the bills being put forward in that sort of format. There is an obligation on ministers to consult and work with the many different stakeholder groups out there. However, the opportunity to be consulted, and for the minister at that time to conduct consultations and work with the different stakeholders, which I would suggest is their responsibility, was never done. It was never done because it was introduced through private members' legislation and there were limits.

Members will have more debate on the legislation before us than we did on one of those bills that went through second reading, third reading, and ultimately passage. It is because there are severe limitations when proposed legislation is brought in through a private member's bill. The process in terms of going to committee is also changed.

Even if somehow, in some sort of twisted way, the government wanted to bring it in through government legislation, I suspect there is a very good chance that it would not have passed. There is no doubt in my mind, they never would have reached consensus.

The former government should have taken this seriously. However, it did not. It was more concerned about scoring political points than improving harmony or consensus within Canada's labour movement, industry as a whole, and our economy. The Conservatives were more interested in being able to tell whoever their stakeholders and vested interest groups were that they were hitting hard on the unions. They were doing it in an unfair fashion, and they had no qualms about doing that.

I sat on the opposition bench as those votes proceeded. It was quite disappointing. We in the Liberal Party understand how important it is that we have, promote, and encourage labour harmony. That is what governments should be doing, not trying to cause divisive mechanisms or change the system to make it more lopsided. That is not what the government should be doing. We should be trying to encourage that harmony and consensus. That is something we would see with Bill C-4.

The only group of people who will oppose this piece of legislation will be led by the Conservative Party in most part. However, let us recognize that the real reason we have the legislation before us today is because it was a commitment.

My colleague from the Atlantic region, our critic at the time, enunciated just why the private member's bill that was being proposed was fundamentally flawed. He was right. It was and is fundamentally flawed. That is why it needs to be changed. That is why the leader of the third party back then, today's Prime Minister, made a commitment to rectify the wrong. That is what Bill C-4 would do.

I hear a lot about labour legislation coming from the New Democratic Party, and I would caution members. In one of the committees, the Ontario minister of labour made a presentation. She indicated that the private members' bills, if passed, would have the federal government overstepping its constitutional boundaries and stepping into an area of provincial jurisdiction. I am grateful my New Democratic friends are supporting the bill. I applaud them. However, they need to keep in mind that there is some legislation that might be better seen at the provincial level. We have to respect that jurisdictional issue, or at the very least, have that discussion with our provincial counterparts.

For example, the anti-scab legislation was talked about a lot in Manitoba during the late 70s and early 80s. It was not passed through the Manitoba legislature. Instead, the government of Howard Pawley made the decision to bring in the final offer selection, which I made reference to earlier. My understanding is that the only government that has ever brought in anti-scab legislation in a true form, from what I recall, was a Liberal administration in Quebec. It might have changed in recent years. I do not know. We see many different labour laws brought up at the provincial level.

What we have today is part of an election commitment, but when there are labour changes, we need to work with the stakeholders. That is what I would like to recommend when people look at this, especially the Conservatives. They should consider the way that labour and industry as a whole, the economy, was affected by introducing bills through the back door, which absolutely no one, outside of someone who belonged to the Conservative Party and happened to be a member of the House of Commons, was actually calling for. Bill C-4 is a bill that every member in the House should be supporting.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member. This is not the first time he has risen to speak in the House, to say the least. I greatly appreciate his eloquence.

However, given that he is an experienced politician, I am disappointed in one thing in particular. He keeps talking about the back door. Here in the House there is no back door. There is a large door that the 338 duly elected members walk through every day. We are all members of the House of Commons. No one gets in here through any other door. We all enter through the same door.

Is the member saying that those who were elected during the last government who were not ministers could not propose bills? Does it mean that those guys are not as good as ministers? What is he doing? He is a government MP, but he is not a minister. Does that mean he is a backdoor guy? I do not think so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, all doors that lead to the House of Commons are good doors, but I must advise the member there are back doors in this building too. The former government often used the back door of private members' bills to pass what should have been government legislation. I, for one, believe in private members' hour and private member's bills and have participated in many discussions on private member's bills, but I do not support a government that consistently uses private members' hour as a way to get through what should be government bills. In some of those cases, the Conservative government used private members' hour to complete its legislative agenda. That happened on a few occasions.