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

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the comments from my colleague from Brandon—Souris, and I acknowledge the great work he is doing on this file.

I was in my riding this weekend and I was talking to my neighbour. He was talking about what the union did to intimidate him during one of the provincial elections in Saskatchewan. The union bosses came in and intimidated him. They said basically he needed to vote for a certain party and that his obligation as a union member was to vote for that party.

We look at the intimidation that was going on in a provincial election; now let us put it into ballot vote. Let us put it into the situation where they are going to certify or decertify a union. Can members imagine the intimidation that would be in that room in an open ballot? Can members imagine the intimidation that they would put on their members if the election were an open ballot?

I ask this of my colleague. In the scenario of a closed or secret ballot, what is the issue? That is how most democracies operate today. Why can the unions not operate in that same fashion?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is the hub of what we are talking about here in this debate on Bill C-4, brought forward by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

It is very true that the intimidation that I spoke about in my own remarks here is exactly why they need to have a secret ballot. Under the old mechanisms, a 35% sign-up gave them a union, but they had to have 50% to decertify a union. My colleague brought in Bill C-525, one of the first bills that I had the opportunity to speak to in this House. We levelled it at 40% either way, and that does still not even require half. It is a very fair piece of legislation that was on the books, and that is why I make the comment and the point that the Liberals are trying to fix something that is not broken.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we support the government's proposed changes in response to the Conservatives' anti-union bills.

I represent a riding that has seen its share of companies close their doors. Workers now have increasingly precarious, part-time jobs through no fault of their own.

Does my colleague realize that to introduce a bill against unions is to be against workers?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, again that question makes the point that when they have a 35% sign-up to have a union and 50% to decertify, what was wrong with sawing that off at 40% to have a union or to decertify it?

I am not surprised that my colleague who just asked the question from the New Democratic Party agrees with this bill brought forward by the former NDP minister in Manitoba who is now the Liberal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in Canada. It looks to me like the Liberal government is trying to outflank the NDP on the left with this kind of legislation. It is certainly not fair to workers seeking union certification.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on the bill thus far.

This exercise is not so much about outlining the vision of the legislation that we have before us, but about untangling what has been tangled before. Therefore, we now find ourselves in this position where we are taking back two particular bills.

I will not specifically address the issue of private members' bills and how they are being used, whether for nefarious reasons or not. Personally, I respect private members' bills, no matter what they are. They are from a member and there is a reason they exist. However, I would like to attack these particular bills based on their policies and how they are unfair in this context.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were bills that I did not support from the beginning. Therefore, we need to undo what has been done in order to proceed any further, and Bill C-4 would do just that.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 passed without the extensive consultation process traditionally used for labour relations law reform. This is what we call the tripartite way of doing things. We have the government, the union and organized labour and, of course, we have the employers, all of which need to be consulted on something as important as this, because it affects so many Canadians across the country. Changes to labour relations legislation has always been preceded by this.

I have two examples of how this was done. I would like to bring these examples to the House because they illustrate the way things should be done using the tripartite process.

In 1995, the Sims task force did extensive public consultations on part 1 of the Canada Labour Code, and included labour, employers, and government stakeholders. The name of the report is “Seeking a Balance”, which formed the basis of major changes that came into effect in 1999. Going further back to 1978, the second example I would like to use, was the Woods task force, which was another tripartite consultative process. It was used to bring about change to the federal industrial relations system.

However, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, there was not much consultation. I am not sure of all the work that the members did in response to these two bills, but I would assume that the opposition during the committee process both here in the House and in the Senate illustrates that a lot of consultation did not take place in this tripartite manner.

I will go to the part where the bill talks about some of the other non-labour practices of the former government. Of course, in many situations the Conservatives went against many of the unions and organized labour, and a result caused a very poisoned atmosphere over the past while. Whenever we heard the government talk about big union bosses and the like, it created a stir among organized labour and many governments, both provincial and here in Ottawa.

Here are some of the rules the Conservatives brought in: a requirement to provide information on the time spent by officers on political lobbying, which would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website; and an obligation on unions to provide their financial statements to their own members for free and when they are asked for it.

This was almost a situation where the Conservatives wanted to create a solution to a problem that did not exist. They did so without the right amount of consultation and, as a result, neglected to see some of the steps that had been taken over the past 20 to 25 years by organized labour, employers and the associations they are represented by.

Bill C-377 was directed solely at labour organizations, and that was quite evident during the evidence that was given here in the House and in both House and Senate committees. It was directed at labour trusts and not at any other professional associations, which, by the way, benefited from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act, but they were not specifically told to be more transparent as well.

As hon. colleagues will recall, the Minister of National Revenue has waived the reporting requirements for 2016 in Bill C-377 knowing that we intend to work to repeal the bill.

I will go back to the debate that took place, before we get into Bill C-4. When Bill C-377 went to the Senate, a colleague of ours by the name of Hugh Segal, a Conservative senator at the time, was vociferously against the bill, to the point where he had brought amendments that were accepted at the time. I will read an editorial he did after retiring from the Senate about how he was against Bill C-377 and its fundamental principles. I will quote from his editorial:

The Canadian Bar Association questioned its constitutionality, as it sought to circumvent normal provincial jurisdiction over labour relations and trade unions by imposing Canada Revenue Agency reporting requirements via federal statute.

There he talked about the constitutional crisis that had been raised by this particular situation. We can question the constitutionality of the bill as defined by the powers directed by the provincial governments and the federal government, which are laid out quite clearly.

Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal went on to say:

There was also the issue raised by many witnesses before the committee that reporting relationships for small expenditures being imposed on unions and union locals were not being imposed on other corporate or charitable/not-for-profit groups.

We saw this in the House of Commons testimony as well, when witnesses talked about how the same onus was not put on other associations to divulge or make transparent the activities they do and the contributions they receive, including from whom, which really would have created a balance.

The imbalance during labour negotiations was also talked about and mentioned in Hugh Segal's article and the point was made that information would be divulged by local labour organizations to the point where it would put them at a distinct disadvantage in certain negotiations.

I want to thank him for doing that, because I thought that in earnest he had put together some very viable amendments. Let us face it, like every bill of this size, there are good points and there are bad points, but Conservative Senator Hugh Segal attempted to make amendments. I should not say “attempted”, because he actually did make them. His amendments were accepted by members of the Senate, and then the bill was sent back here to the House for it to address it once more with those fixes in place. The House was prorogued.

Here, I know that everyone is just waiting to hear how this works, right? It is that type of day.

[An hon. member]

With bated breath.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

With bated breath, yes indeed, Madam Speaker.

When prorogation takes place, the bill resets and goes back to its original form. The bill in its original form then went back to the Senate, but Hugh Segal was not there, unfortunately. Therefore, it was passed in its original form, which is the reason why we are here today talking about Bill C-4 in this manner.

I want to talk about one of the situations my NDP colleague brought up earlier when it comes to transparency. I remember when a gentleman, an independent member of Parliament, Brent Rathgeber, had a private member's bill on transparency and the disclosure of salaries, and so on and so forth. He specifically went after a couple of elements within the public discussion. He went after the CBC, wanting the disclosure of CBC salaries, and so on and so forth. There were some problems with the bill when it came to the CBC being quasi-competitive in the private sector, but he also talked about divulging or making transparent the salaries of people in government, including the salaries of the people who worked in the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office of the day, the Conservative Prime Minister.

The Conservatives amended the bill. Mr. Rathgeber's bill said that anyone making around $150,000 should have their salary divulged. It was based on the sunshine list that exists in Ontario, which concerns anyone making more than $150,000. The Conservatives amended it so that only someone making more than $400,000 a year would have their salary disclosed. Anyone making less than that would not have their salary disclosed. As we say back home, “You are too cute by half, sir”. The Conservatives were trying to protect their own.

It is funny that we have massive disclosure demanded from labour organizations, but when it came to the Conservative Prime Minister's Office, it was not the same standard. That is why we are here today.

I support Bill C-4 for the reason that it untangles the effects of the two private members' bills, despite the strong efforts by the two members who brought forward these private members' bills, a process that we still uphold here as honourable for each and every individual member. However, I disagree with them and therefore I would strongly urge all of us to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member go on a bit of a tangent about sunshine lists and the disclosure of PMO salaries. There are interesting arguments to be made on both sides of that. I just want to clarify if he is in favour of the current Prime Minister's Office disclosing a sunshine list in the format he has talked about. Will the Liberal government bring forward the sunshine list legislation he is praising in his remarks?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am always in favour of transparency. I would never turn it down. Anyone who works around here should have full disclosure on this. That is my view personally. I do believe in that.

As a matter of fact, I was referring to Mr. Rathgeber's bill. I point towards his chair because that is where he used to sit. He was an hon. member, a very smart man, and he worked very hard. What he tried to do was put more disclosure on certain aspects of governance. He pointed out the hypocrisy that tends to occur in this place, small or large, and that was happening at the time. Demanding transparency of one group includes transparency for all.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I support what my colleague has to say in favour of workers' rights and improving their working conditions.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a proud provincial public servant. I have a great deal of respect for all public servants, who work daily for the common good. I think the best way to send a clear message is to lead by example.

Accordingly, in the current negotiations with public servants, will my colleague ask the government to restore public service sick leave and adopt the provisions with regard to health and better working conditions?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, obviously, with regard to what she is talking about right now, we will let the discussions unfold. I have always had a deep respect for public sector workers. I have always had respect for them, their remuneration, and anything dealing with the benefits they receive. Yes, I do. It is a negotiation between the government and the union. I realize that. I will leave that at what it is right now and speak about it later when the time comes to vote on that particular legislation.

What I am focused on right now is untangling the mess in Bill C-4, and I thank the member for her comments about it. She supports Bill C-4, and I appreciate that support for all the reasons we do: the injustices in the particular provisions contained within Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very astute comments. I appreciate hearing the history of this place. For those of us who are new, sometimes it is very elucidating.

One of the things I most appreciated about his remarks was his comment about the balance between labour, corporations, and government. Neither side is all right or all wrong, and I do not like it when people say they are doing something because they are pro labour or against labour. We all have to find a proper balance.

If he could, I would like the hon. member to expand on where he sees a proper balance being.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his astute comments as well, as we trade all kinds of compliments between each other.

In the spirit of this massive love-in that we embarked on, yes, we are talking about the love-in as well when it comes to these particular tripartite negotiations. That is what he talked about: the businesses, the employers, organized labour and, of course, government. He also pointed out that we want to avoid what happened last time with sweeping generalizations about who we are as groups.

Many times I have heard people say that they do not really like unions or they are all for unions. We must have a conversation that looks at and accentuates the wonderful things they do, and if we have disagreements, bring them here to the House.

My other hon. colleague pointed out the situation with sick leave. It is a valid point. We know there will be disagreements. We have to look at the books as they are and the fiscal balance that we hope to achieve, and that is why we cannot use sweeping generalizations anymore with terms like “big union bosses” or “corporate bosses”, and the like. If we go that way, we will all sound like Donald Trump, and wouldn't that be a bad thing?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to follow up with the reference to Donald Trump in this chamber. I will leave it at that.

I would like to refer to Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The Conservatives often attached names to their bills. Basically these were known as bills to create two straw men. It was really an attempt to create an issue that had not existed and they sought a solution to a problem that did not exist. I say that because unions and corporations are barred from political donations.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien brought this to the House, and it was something that I and my colleagues supported. It has been a good way going forward, and has been replicated by provincial NDP governments to ensure ordinary voters and citizens have as much of an impact on the voting process as larger and medium-sized corporations, big unions, and small unions do.

Another good change I saw was the limitations put on some of the lobbying activity that took place related to those donations. I often saw, through TPP grants, a former program, the government of the day, either the Conservatives or the Liberals, would have large grant donations go to companies under the TPP program. Those companies then would spend hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the party. That was a bad practice.

Another bad practice was related to the funds that members of Parliament were allowed to keep in secrecy, different from the riding association. In the past a number of different MPs were able to accumulate funds independently. That has changed as well.

Those contributions, be it political, union, or corporate donations, are gone. Those were good, credible movements made by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. I give him credit for that because this is a better place and more reflective of the people.

With regard to the tone we heard from union bosses, this is nothing more than passive aggressive attacks on their institutions and Canadians who are democratically elected to their positions through their membership, and membership reviews. In fact, if the union collectively bargains for an agreement and the membership turns it down, it could then remove the leadership for the collective bargaining.

Sometimes it is done voluntarily, when the leadership recognizes it has missed the point from the workers. Most recently, we saw this take place in Ontario with public servants of correctional facilities. An agreement was turned down, and the message to the union negotiators, including the executive, was that greater accountability was needed and not enough was being done to win their support.

There are processes in place for accountability. Union members can get annual reports.

I would like to talk a little about some big union bosses, Rob from CUPE Local 82 and Dino from Unifor Local 444. We had a skate and donate program. CUPE Local 82 members took Family Day off and volunteered to help raise money for a local women's shelter and our downtown mission. I was fortunate to get two children's bicycles from Unifor Local 444. There were no complaints whatsoever. There were non-union, union, and other people from the not-for-profit sector there. We tripled our donations for those organizations and food banks. We also brought in triple the amount of food.

Big union bosses contribute so much on a regular basis to social justice causes; everything from refugees to a number of different programs, including food banks. They hold press conferences. Local 200 donates to eight children's groups. This is in the Windsor Star. It is in the public. All the members from Local 200 are Ford workers. They have had a struggle with this economy. It is because of the quality of their work that we have not lost more jobs. We have seen the failed practices of Liberal governments in the past and the former Conservative government with respect to the auto industry, which shrank from number two in the world in assembly to number eight.

Despite that, we have investment taking place because the members of the unions are good workers and they run a series of health and safety programs to ensure injury reduction in the workplace. Unions have bargained for those rights to increase the productivity of the workers. Because of that, without any government investment at all, Fiat has invested in the Windsor Chrysler assembly plant. It is now hiring 1,000 workers to increase production for the new minivan now known as the Pacifica.

Despite the economic conditions, this plant is the number one manufacturing facility since World War II. It has been operating now for over 10 years on three shifts, and has been making money for the company, rescuing it at different times. As well, the unions have been donating money on a regular basis. Members know this because it has been in the paper. Local 200 has given to the autism society of Windsor and Essex, the Bulimia Anorexia Nervosa Association, the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Child Abuse Prevention Portal, Computers for Kids, Childhood Leukemia Foundation, Canadian Mental Health Association, Griefworks children's program, Jumpstart, and the Sunshine Foundation Dreams for Kids.

This is not only published in the Windsor Star, but it also is also publicized in the general media through TV and radio. Therefore, union members know exactly what is taking place because they are tuned in. We have had long-standing representation from their executives, but they have had to win their workers over. That is done mostly through the confidence in their collective bargaining agreement and through their actions in the public.

There are hundreds of thousands of dollars locally in my community, and I am proud to say I have a union town. The hypocrisy about this is when we talk about secret votes. Let us set the record straight. Unions are not allowed secret votes, but it is okay for members of Parliament to have a secret vote to elect a Speaker. There is no problem with that. We have the Board of Internal Economy committee. We hunker down behind closed doors and nothing goes public, and that is okay. We have different rules.

When I was a city councillor, and that was a while ago, we could only go in camera, or behind closed doors when the public and media were excluded, for issues related to property, personnel, and conflict of interest. There were very specific rules. However, what I have seen in my years here is that if somebody sneezes, the committee can go in camera. It is a ridiculous process and it shuts the doors to accountability. Although the taping continues, we cannot make the information public later on. Members can access it to listen to the proceedings, but they cannot talk about it. It is outrageous that this hypocrisy takes place.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 trample on a number of different rights, which are often looked at by experts as constitutionally unacceptable. Most important, they will also cost Canadian taxpayers over $20 million just to instate a program and an additional $5 million for one bill alone. It is a cost that should not be accepted. Therefore, I and my colleagues support Bill C-4.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He kind of railed against the term “big union bosses”. However, would he respond to the words of his former colleague, Ryan Cleary, the former NDP MP for St. John's South—Mount Pearl? In his recent blog post, which appeared in the Newfoundland Herald this week, he said, “As a NDP MP, for example, there was an unspoken rule that I could not take a public stand on a fishery issue without first running it by the [Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union]”.

When he talks about transparency and accountability, does the member think that is what he is referring to? Is that the NDP mantra, that any public stand members take in their constituency or for the portfolios to which they are assigned must first be run through the union, which, in the case of Ryan Cleary, was the FFAW? Does he have a similar arrangement that he would like to share with the House? Is Mr. Cleary not telling the truth, or what is the big union boss relationship with the NDP?