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

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not all union members in Canada want their union dues spent to support a political party that they do not support. They want the protection of a secret ballot.

I am interested to hear the member explain how replacing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 with Bill C-4 would do anything to protect the workers' rights.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly which motion or bill I might have been asked about, because I tried to address several in my speech. However, we are debating Bill C-4, so I assume the question is about that legislation. It really would improve collaboration by doing away with the most egregious Conservative attacks on working people and on unions, but it is clearly not enough.

As I said in my speech, if we really want to have balance in the workplace, it is important that the employer not be allowed to simply bring in replacement workers when there is a legitimate strike or lockout under way. Therefore, we also need to pass anti-scab legislation. I am very proud that it has come forward as a private member's bill.

I agree with my colleague across the way that Bill C-4 is a good start, but much more is required to really achieve justice for working people in this country.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we resume debate on Bill C-4 today, it is important to remember why unions matter. Unions provide better pay, pensions, and benefits. Unions provide healthier and safer workplaces.

Some would argue that, while unions might have been necessary in a Dickensian era, workers are now already protected by good regulations; but the reality in many workplaces is that labour and safety regulations are only really applied if a union is present to call attention to those issues. Unions give employees a voice in their workplaces, and that feedback is often very useful to management and, indeed, can help to improve productivity. Countries with higher rates of unionization enjoy better living standards, greater equality, and more stable economies.

I believe that the House should maintain an industrial relations regime that facilitates employees forming unions and bargaining collectively. Unfortunately, the former Conservative government did the opposite. Bill C-525 made it harder to form unions and easier to decertify them. The Conservatives would say that this bill is all about allowing workers to vote on their union status, but the Conservatives have not implemented a system that would allow elections in all workplaces across the country to determine whether employees want a union.

The Conservatives' supposed interest in workplace democracy only kicks in after workers have indicated that they want to join a union by signing membership cards. Bill C-525 essentially places another hurdle in the way of employees seeking to join a union, and this delay is not simply a matter of inconvenience. In far too many cases, it has provided an opportunity for employers to intimidate their employees and prevent unionization.

Moving on to Bill C-377, this legislation imposes onerous administrative requirements on unions. The Conservatives would have us believe that it is all about transparency. I think everyone in the House believes that unions should and do provide financial statements to their members. That happened for decades before this legislation was enacted, and it will continue to happen after it is repealed.

However, Bill C-377 went far beyond financial statements. It required unions to disclose and account for each individual transaction over $5,000. If the House ever applied that type of transparency to a business, the Conservatives would be screaming about red tape and compliance costs. Indeed, Bill C-377 would cost millions of dollars for the Canada Revenue Agency to administer.

One of the more clever arguments that the Conservatives made in this debate was that international unions operating in Canada are already subject to such requirements through the U.S. Department of Labor. Before the people of Regina—Lewvan elected me, I worked as an economist for the United Steelworkers union, and I can tell the House that Bill C-377 does not align with the American disclosure requirements and, in fact, goes far beyond them.

I am very happy to vote in favour of Bill C-4, but simply repealing the most egregious Conservative attacks on working people is not enough. Much more is going to be needed to improve the situation of working Canadians.

Often in this debate, the Liberals have spoken about the need for balance in industrial relations. One aspect of that balance is that in the rare cases where the collective bargaining process breaks down, both sides bear an economic cost. In a strike or a lockout, the employer must make do without the workers' labour and the workers must make do without their wages. Therefore, there is pressure on both sides to come to a resolution. However, if the employer can simply bring in replacement workers, that destroys this balance.

I am very pleased that my colleague from Jonquière has introduced a private member's bill to restore balance in this situation. In recent minority Parliaments, the Liberals spoke very positively about anti-scab legislation, but they never quite produced enough votes to actually pass it.

Now, the Liberals have a majority. They have the ability to pass whatever legislation they want, and how the Liberals vote on anti-scab legislation will be a crucial test of whether the government plans to live up its rhetoric about respecting workers' rights and strengthening the middle class.

Many other important workplace issues go beyond industrial relations. In the election, the Liberals promised to improve the Canada pension plan. It took three ghosts to convince Ebenezer Scrooge. When the Minister of Finance met with the provinces before Christmas, it took only two ghosts, Christy Clark and Brad Wall, to steer him away from improving the Canada pension plan.

As a proud Saskatchewanian, I found it rather strange that our premier used the downturn in commodities to argue against improving the Canada pension plan, rather than be in favour of improving employment insurance that actually would have helped the affected workers.

Despite all the Conservative rhetoric we have heard in this House about the need to respect the oil and gas sector, I think it is telling that Conservative MPs will not stand up and support better access to employment insurance for laid-off energy workers.

I am proud of the fact that the NDP is pushing for better employment insurance. In the election, the Liberals also talked about better employment insurance, but yesterday they were up speaking against our opposition day motion to achieve exactly that.

The specific Liberal objection was to a national entrance requirement of 360 hours. I would just remind the House that when the Liberals were on this side of the House, they were demanding precisely that policy. Now the Liberals are saying that regional differences in labour markets need to be respected.

Certainly those regional differences exist, but if someone is laid off in a region of high unemployment or low unemployment, they are still out of a job and they still need income support.

What the Liberals have not explained is why the entrance requirement is the aspect of employment insurance that should vary in response to regional differences. It is still the case that the duration of EI benefits varies according to the regional unemployment rate, and there is a logic that it probably takes longer to find a job in an area with a higher unemployment rate. The NDP motion would allow the duration of EI benefits to continue to vary according to regional differences.

There are also problems and lags in measuring regional unemployment. Regina is near the epicentre of the downturn in the oil and gas sector, yet the measured unemployment rate in my community is still low enough that the entrance requirement for EI remains at the national maximum of 700 hours.

Imagine individuals working part time for 25 hours a week, and imagine that they work for half the year. Well, 25 hours a week times 26 weeks is 650 hours, which is not enough to qualify for employment insurance. Individuals in Regina could pay into EI for half a year, and then when they are laid off, receive no benefit whatsoever. That is unfair, and that is why we need a national entrance requirement of 360 hours.

The NDP will vote for Bill C-4, but working Canadians also need the Liberals to vote for our opposition day motion to improve employment insurance, to vote for the private member's bill to enact anti-scab legislation, and to keep their promise to improve the Canada pension plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some accommodations were made with the other side to allow me to speak at this time, and I very much appreciate that.

I rise today to speak about Bill C-4, which would make very substantial changes to our labour relations environment.

For the purposes of my speech today, I will focus on one specific element of the bill, the secret ballot.

I believe in the importance of a secret ballot. On first blush, it would perhaps seem odd that, here we are in 2016, in the Canadian House of Commons with our long history of respecting freedom, human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, and yet it is necessary in 2016 to make arguments about the importance of a secret ballot. Frankly, we thought the argument on structural deficits had been won in the 1990s, and we thought the argument for the secret ballot had been won in the 19th century, yet the current government's actions force us to again make arguments, which to many perhaps seem rather obvious, about how essential it is to allow people to vote in private without someone else's scrutiny.

It is 2016, but I will say, unlike our current Prime Minister, I have more to say in favour of social improvement than simply stating the current date.

I would like to give some background about the certification process, and then make some substantive arguments about the importance of a secret ballot.

We have different systems for union certification, and the context we are talking about today, of course, is the secret ballot for union certification. We favour a secret ballot. We favour the idea that people should be able to express their political views in privacy, without scrutiny from other people. We think that is a good general principle of democracy.

However, in this particular case at least, the government and our colleagues in the NDP think differently. They favour a card check system, which involves a certification process where people are asked to sign on in a sort of semi-public way. Someone would ask a person to sign on, those cards would be collected, and then certification would happen automatically based on that card check process. In my view, this very much resembles the sort of 19th century public balloting system and has many of the same problems.

What are the substantive reasons of why a secret ballot is important?

I will start by talking about the right to privacy. People should have their right to privacy respected in matters of political opinion, and one might say in the matter of religious opinion as well, and on these deeply important, and for some people, personal matters. People should have the right to not have to express their opinions in public.

Of course, many people choose to talk publicly about their political perspective. Nobody has any doubt how I voted in the last election. However, just because some people wish to be public, it does not mean that others who wish to be more private should not in fact have the right to do so. We understand and respect the right to privacy in these cases. Without that privacy respected, many people would not have the ability to vote and be confident that there would not be some discomfort to them or some negative consequence.

I was recently in India talking about some human rights issues there. One of the issues in India is that a number of states have laws that require people who want to change their religion to declare so publicly, and then have the state review the process by which they came to that decision. In India, many have concerns about this precisely because of the fact that one should be able to keep those deeply held opinions private.

The argument was made in response that if people are confident in their own perspectives, why should they not be willing to declare them publicly? However, we obviously understand that on these sensitive matters, and that includes opinions about unions and union certification, people should have the right to have the privacy of their opinions respected, and a secret ballot effectively ensures that.

The second argument I will make in defence of the secret ballot is that secret ballots protect people from reprisals and help to avoid corruption. Here I think it is important to visit some of the history around how the secret ballot originally developed.

In 1867 in the U.K., the second reform act was passed, called “The Representation of the People Act”. This enfranchised a greater number of skilled workers.

This made the need for a secret ballot particularly urgent. There was a concern that tradespeople would be subject to undue and inappropriate pressure by their employers in the case of a public ballot. If, as the traditional public ballot system was, people had to go to the town square and declare who they were supporting in an election, skilled workers working for other people in trades and other areas might be subject to significant pressure from employers. This added to the concern as well that the tenant class, people who were working other people's land, might be the subject of eviction or threats of eviction if they voted against the interests of those who owned the land on which they lived.

The public ballot was a way of forcing people to not be able to exercise their political franchise in a way that was consistent with their interests because they were subject to threats of economic coercion and other forms of intimidation.

What is important about this history is that bringing in the secret ballot was an essential reform to protect the rights of working people, to protect the rights of lower-income people in the U.K. at the time of the second reform act. Yet perversely, we have political parties in the House today who claim to advocate for those working men and women, who do not understand how important the secret ballot was and continues to be for protecting their ability to express their opinion.

There was real fear of reprisals at the time. That has echoes in our debate today about the fear that people who are forced to vote in a public ballot may be subject to undue pressure and intimidation. That pressure could come from either side. In particular though, in a card check system that intimidation and undue pressure could come from those who are seeking to sign people up. Regardless of people's opinion on certification in a particular case, working men and women should be free to come to their own conclusions and to express their opinions privately without fear of reprisal.

Another issue at the time the secret ballot was introduced was concern about corruption. If people are voting publicly, it is much easier to offer inappropriate inducements to buy votes when one can actually check to see if they voted as they were paid to do so. The secret ballot, although it does not fully eliminate corruption, helps to ensure that sort of thing does not happen, because there is no way to effectively see if the vote that was bought was actually paid.

Protection against reprisals and corruption were important for bringing in secret ballots and they are important today for ensuring that secret ballots continue to exist in all environments.

The third point I will make in defence of the secret ballot is the importance of a vote being preceded by a process of deliberation in which people can hear arguments from both sides. Both sides should have an opportunity to present arguments in favour or against a particular proposition, in this case certification, before the date on which a vote takes place.

The card check system does not allow that deliberation to happen. The card check system means that the certification process could have gone all the way through in terms of getting all of those signatures before people who have a different opinion are even aware that that process is happening. It undermines the principle that there should be meaningful discussion and debate on both sides. The government seems to understand this principle on some issues, although imperfectly.

We disagree with the government's reluctance to have a referendum when it comes to electoral reform. We hear it make the argument that before any kind of hypothetical vote takes place it is important for there to be a long discussion about the different options and the pros and cons. Why does the government not believe that in the case of certification? Surely, the secret ballot at a specific time provides an opportunity for robust debate within a group of workers about whether or not certification in general, and whether or not certification with a particular union, is a good idea.

Many people might be surprised watching this debate today that it is necessary to make arguments in the House in favour of a secret ballot, that two of the three major parties in the House oppose giving working men and women a secret ballot on something as essential as union certification. We need to make those arguments. The government and the NDP just do not seem to understand how truly foundational, how important this is, how consistent this is with a right to privacy, how a secret ballot protects against reprisals and corruption, and how a secret ballot helps ensure that a vote is preceded by a process of meaningful deliberation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reference the question to my colleague from Nickel Belt by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, in which she wanted a provincial example. The province of Newfoundland has gone from the secret ballot to the card check. All of the testimony throughout those hearings indicated that the card check was the best way. It is a system that has served this country well. However, it was imposed in this last government.

We know that constitutional experts said it was unconstitutional. Privacy experts said it breached the privacy of millions of Canadians, and the wife of the Speaker spoke against it. I will just throw that out.

Does my colleague agree that they were both ridiculous pieces of no good, uncalled for legislation, which we are repealing with Bill C-4?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-4 and to ask my fellow members' support.

Bill C-4 would repeal two bills that have changed the labour relations landscape in Canada, and not for the better. We have said from the start that we believe in doing different things and in doing things differently. Supporting the middle class and those working hard to support it is a key priority of our government. Labour relations, positive and otherwise, have a direct and immediate effect on workers and employers.

Bill C-4 would restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in the country, an approach that would allow workers to make free and informed decisions. It is supported by both employers and labour, and it fosters stability. These are fundamental Canadian values that should be reflected in how we support Canadian workers. It is an approach that we can be proud of, unlike the previous Conservative government's “my way or the highway” attitude.

We know we are in trouble when we hear what respected labour leaders, like the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, have to say about Bill C-525 and C-377. He said that the bills “...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 northern Ontario area manager of the carpenters' union said, “Our membership and staff are incredibly happy to hear the Federal Government has followed through with its campaign promise to repeal these [two bills]. The introduction of these Bills were self-serving and posed no benefits to our members who rely on [protecting the rights of the union workers].”

A third quote is from the Canadian union of operating engineers. It said, “One of the biggest key points to repeal Bill C-377 and C-525 is for our members privacy [...] We are a small union [representing] 14,000 members. The additional...cost associated [with making] these changes [with the] new rules will run in and around 3 million dollars, an expense [that this union] cannot afford. We agree with the government and believe these Bills [should] be repealed.”

Simply put, these bills have undermined labour unions and labour relations in the country. Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions and could put unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining. Bill C-525 makes it difficult for employees to unionize and easier for bargaining agents to be certified. Therefore, they trust the government's plan to ensure Canada's labour laws best serve employees and employers.

As a past union member myself, I understand how unions strengthen communities. They help to create a safer workplace, better working conditions, and help recognize the need for workplace health and safety committees.

I look forward to meeting every organized labour union in my riding of Nickel Belt and greater Sudbury, to hear, listen, and understand their issues. I recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping the middle class.

Unions play an important economic role and encourage companies to grow and prosper. They trust that unions can establish productive relationships between employees and employers. Therefore, we should trust the union movement in a fair and balanced way.

While unions are required to share a great deal of information about their operations, employers are not. An organization that does not follow the rules would be fined $1,000 a day, and up to $25,000. Why would a requirement like this be imposed on a labour organization and no one else? These bills single out and attack labour in Canada for no fair reason.

These measures discriminate against unions. Bill C-525 is a disaster. It replaced the card check system with mandatory voting. Unions are no longer certified automatically when a majority of workers sign membership cards. That complicates things for workers who want to unionize. Not only is it now more difficult for unions to obtain certification as bargaining agents, but it is also easier for them to lose their certification.

Who could possibly benefit from the new system? It sure looks like everyone loses. It was up to us to turn the ship around. We are acting in everyone's interest. We want to help the middle class, not hurt it. We believe that for labour policy reform to happen, there must be meaningful dialogue among unions, employers, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public. We are walking the talk.

Repealing Bills C-377 and C-525 is the right decision. It is an informed decision that will restore fairness and balance to the world of work.

These two bills are nothing but solutions to problems that do not even exist. That is why I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-4, which is in the best interest of all Canadians.

I ask members to think about what labour unions do for Canadians, and to think about the working Canadians who are trying to make a living and raise their family. Are decent wages and safe working environments something that members think Canadians can live without? Are positive labour relations between employers and employees important?

I ask members to think about the rights of workers to be represented and protected. I ask that members do the right thing and repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

I am proud to be part of the Liberal government that will repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper.

The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion that we began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will have the final day of debate at second reading on Bill C-4, concerning unions. I would like to note that the votes relating to this bill will be deferred to the end of the day on Monday, March 7, pursuant to an order adopted earlier today.

I want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House for their co-operation in finding an agreement on this matter, and also on the ISIL motion, which was debated earlier this week.

Next week, as my colleague indicated, members will be working in their ridings.

On Monday, March 7, we will resume debate, at second reading stage, of Bill C-2 concerning a tax cut for the middle class. I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 8, will be an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-6 on citizenship, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. On Thursday, we will begin consideration of Bill C-5 concerning public servants' sick leave.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been looking forward to this. Pursuant to Standing Order 83 (2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the Minister of Finance to present the budget at 4 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

Labour

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we want to clarify that Bill C-4 is here to reset a stage that is fair and balanced. Each individual collective bargaining unit can decide on its own system that it chooses to use, whether it is the card system or the voting system. The point of Bill C-4 is to bring fairness and balance, something that was missing because of the other side.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my further thoughts on that are that this is part of an emerging pattern. We saw a number of places where the Liberals were making certain professions during the campaign that were designed to tap into a sense of malaise with Canadians about how the previous government was behaving and policies it had undertaken. To be sure, some of those have been acted on.

We have been happy to see the reinstitution of the long-form census, for instance. I was pleased to stand and speak in favour of Bill C-4.

However, on some other things, like EI reform, making a commitment to expand the CPP, those were commitments that the Liberals made to capture a spirit of reform, a different kind of reform, a left-wing reform. I do not want members beside me to get too excited as I talk about reform.

We now see that they are all too slow to act. I hope that does not mean that they will not act at all.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is right to state that the previous Conservative government had organized labour in its crosshairs. We saw that time and again, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 for example, which I am very pleased that our minister's first piece of legislation, Bill C-4, will repeal.

We will continue to work on labour issues, fair wages, and the definition of danger. Those are important issues and we will continue to pursue them as we go forward.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I think that we have discussed the minimum guaranteed income in some detail. I would like to thank Professor Forget for being here today. We now have a better understanding of the matter.

I have a question for Ms. Baldwin, as well.

As you know and as my colleagues know, I represent many federal public servants here, in the National Capital Region. People have often spoken to me about sick leave. As we know, the previous government used an omnibus bill to pass a short-term disability or benefit system. We are now proposing Bill C-4, which aims to repeal these legislative changes.

Since we are putting things on the record, as my colleague Ms. Raitt said, I would like Ms. Baldwin to describe for us the Public Service Alliance of Canada's position on this issue.

Canada Labour Code

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to bills is part of parliamentary procedure and I am pleased to do it. Any number of bills can come forward, including omnibus bills.

The fact of the matter is that we often hear people discussing the 460-page budget bill. We should be more than willing to read through 460 pages of legislation if we are here to do our job as parliamentarians. I am more than happy to read through any number of documents that come before the House, and I try to read every bill that we vote on, including Bill C-4, which I have read from cover to cover. It is a bad bill and it is not reflective of the hard-working union members in my riding and the hard-working union members I spoke to throughout the campaign and after the campaign.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-4.

We heard a lot from the other two parties about the importance of unions and the union environment, and I agree. Unions play an important role in our society and our economy, but they also have to keep up to pace with the modern society and modern economy that we now have in the 21st century.

I am proud to have been a long-time union member. I was a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC. I was a member of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees. I was also a member of CUPE. I know first-hand about being a member of a union and the benefits that union membership does bring to a number of people in the workforce. However, at the same time, it is also essential that unions are subject to a fair and effective regulatory process to ensure that unions serve their members and not just their union bosses. Bill C-4, however, would remove such regulations and protections, and that is why I will not be supporting it.

The current Liberal government brought Bill C-4 to repeal two private members' bills passed by the 41st Parliament: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. While the other parties make some obscure claims that these bills are attacks on unions, when one actually reads the bills, it is very clear that it is simply not the case.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act, requiring union management to file a standard set of financials each year to be posted on the CRA website. These requirements are not unreasonable. In fact, if a union boss were proud of the work he or she was doing, he or she should be more than willing to show his or her strong financial management within his or her union environment.

Bill C-377 was carefully examined by Parliament through the private members' bill process. It went to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, where many groups expressed their support for the bill, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, and Merit Canada.

The transparency requirements introduced in Bill C-377 do not weaken unions. In fact, they empower union members. Union members and all Canadians are able to receive quicker and easier access to information on how their mandatory union fees are being used. This is essential. Union fees are not optional; they are mandatory. What else is mandatory? Canadian taxes.

We as parliamentarians all spend Canadian tax dollars with our expense claims, and we as parliamentarians post our expenses online for our constituents to see. Union dues are the same. They are forced mandatory fees, and Canadians and those who pay fees should have access to that information, especially when these fees are being used to undertake political activities.

Mandatory union fees should be used to support and protect the wages, rights, and benefits of their members. However, for purposes beyond that, members should be entitled to know where their money is going and how it is being spent. It is imperative that those who are forced to pay union fees have easy access to that information so they can hold their representatives and their directors accountable. It allows members to ensure that their union leaders are spending their hard-earned money in a way that is responsible and not for the personal or political gain of union leadership.

As I said at the outset, I am a former union member. In 2012, I was a member of PSAC, Local 610. In that year, we saw a provincial election in Quebec, and PSAC came out and openly endorsed the Parti Québécois in the Quebec provincial election. Here we had PSAC, a federal government union, supporting tens of thousands of federal public servants, openly endorsing a separatist party in Quebec. As a union member, I was disgusted by that. I was disgusted by the fact that my union would go out and openly support a party that had no other raison d'être than ruining and breaking up this country. It was unconscionable that it happened, but it did.

During the 2014 provincial election in Ontario, because my wife is a nurse and a member of a local union, our home voice mail was constantly flooded with union messages telling us whom we should not be voting for. They did not go so far as to tell us who we should be voting for, but they simply told us that one particular party would cause all kinds of job losses. Of course, now we are seeing those same job losses under Kathleen Wynne in Ontario, but the union seems to be quiet on that particular subject.

Here is the thought: these unions need to be accountable to their members on how they spend in a clear and transparent manner, especially when we are talking about political activities undertaken by union membership with forced and mandatory union dues.

I want to talk briefly now about Bill C-525, which amended the Canada Labour Code to require certification and decertification votes to be held by secret ballot. This protects individuals from undue pressure and intimidation, and it allows secret ballot for workers to decide how they want to be represented, and not to be pressured by their co-workers or union bosses.

I have been listening very closely to the arguments on the other side against the secret ballot, and I have yet to hear one single coherent answer on what is wrong with the secret ballot for certification and decertification votes. We have heard our other members suggest how secret ballots are used in other types of union activities and why there is such an inherent challenge with using secret ballots for a certification vote. We just simply have not had an answer on that. The secret ballot is a fundamental element of a fair and democratic process. It is something that I, as a parliamentarian, am proud to stand for and proud to endorse. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were not attacks on unions. However, Bill C-4 is an attack on accountability and transparency.

In his letter to Canadians on November 4, 2015, the Prime Minister said, “That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency”. The government across the way claims to be all for openness and transparency, but if it were really for that, it would not be going ahead with the repeal of these two bills. It is very clear that openness and transparency is a mushy subject for the Liberals across the way, and how they selectively choose to define it is really up to them, it seems.

Finally, I want to talk about that canard that we have been hearing time and again from the Liberals across the way, that private members' bills are somehow a way of getting legislation in through the back door. I am proud to be a member of this House. I worked hard to get to this place. We knocked on more than 30,000 doors in Perth—Wellington, and I am proud to come in through that front door and to represent my constituents in Perth—Wellington here. I am proud to have the ability, as a private member, to introduce legislation that I feel supports the people of Perth—Wellington and supports the people of Canada as a whole. It is disgusting that the Liberals would refer to this as going through the back door of legislation. We have rights as parliamentarians, and I am proud to stand on behalf of those rights. I am proud to be a member of a party that saw, under the Conservative government, more private members' bills pass in the 41st Parliament than at any time before then.

I am proud that our party allows free votes on private members' business, and on votes of conscience for that matter, unlike the members across the way. I am proud to be standing in this House, representing the people of Perth—Wellington, and I am proud to be voting against Bill C-4, which would be a step backward for openness and transparency.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. As a member who was elected to the House right off the job site and a proud member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, I am very pleased to be speaking to this legislation.

We have heard a lot in the debate. The hon. member was just talking about the executive and the membership. I come from a union where the rank and file were quite upset with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. They wanted to see them go. They go to their monthly meetings and discuss what kind of spending is going to happen at the executive level, right down to approving the credit card bill, on a monthly basis, of the people who work in the office. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of most members of my union that they have the opportunity, not just to get the information about how their local union is spending money, but also to have a say in open meetings.

There is a fabricated argument for transparency. For those who need the transparency because it is their dues money being spent, they have access to that information and have had access to that information. In that sense, the bill was a solution looking for a problem.

The executive in my union know well that the power they have when it comes to working with industry, finding jobs for members and making sure that members get fair pay and good benefits for the work they do, does not come from any particular piece of legislation. Obviously, like any other good institution, we need enabling legislation, not persecuting legislation, as I would say Bill C-377 and C-525 are. The power of the executive of my union comes from the membership. It comes from the good work that we do every day. It comes from the quality product that we produce on site. It comes from the extra training that our union provides to our members so that we are out there being the best in the industry. That is why our contractors, like the electrical contractors of Manitoba, have worked quite collaboratively with my local. They know that our union is providing added value to the projects they do, and frankly that we are making them more money. That is what we hear in the dialogue with our contractors.

I am in a tight spot, because of course I do not want to be unparliamentary. I do not want to attribute ulterior motives to any particular party. However, the level of ignorance that one would have to attribute to people making some of the arguments I have heard in the chamber today, such as ignorance about the way that unions work, about the relationship in the building trades between the unions and contractors, verges on unparliamentary. Therefore, I am feeling in a bit of a tight spot.

I do not want to do any of that, so perhaps I will talk instead about the degree and extent to which the legislation has to be seen not just on its own. If we consider it on its own, then some of the red herrings we have heard today may be effective. However, we need to consider it in the context of a government program that brought in Bill C-377, Bill C-525 and Bill C-59. When railroad workers were going into negotiations with their employer and Canada Post workers were going into negotiations with their employer, they were threatened. Sometimes before they even had the strike vote, they were threatened that they would be legislated back to work.

We need to consider it in the context of a government, some of whose members were making comments such as we heard again today from members from the Conservative Party, criticizing the Rand formula and mandatory union dues. We need to consider it in the context of a government that limited access to EI so that workers were more afraid of challenging their employer, because in the case of a layoff they would not be able to pay their mortgage and feed their families. We need to consider it in the context of a government that refused to talk to the provinces when they asked to increase the Canada pension plan, so that employees who were ready to retire could not leave the workforce, putting downward pressure on wages and blocking opportunities for young people to be promoted within their companies. When we consider it in that context, it is impossible to say that those bills were not meant as an anti-union program. It had very little to do with anything that was coming from the rank and file of labour unions, and everything to do with a government that was working hand in hand with employers to put downward pressure on the working conditions and wages of Canadian workers.

That is part of why these bills were so shameful. It is not just for the content of the bill; we have heard a lot about what was wrong with the content of the bills. They were part of a deliberate and sustained program to make life harder for Canadian workers so that corporations that were already, over that timeframe, making record profits could add a little more to their margins. In a time when corporations were seeing their tax rate go from 28% to 15%, they could squeeze a little bit more out of their workers.

When the economy is working well, we have labour peace. We have labour peace, not when employees are being held under the thumb of their employers, but when they are free to negotiate collectively with their employers and work for fair wages and fair benefits. We know that the union movement, over time and today, contributed to that and contributes to that. We know by the behaviour of many employers, and I dare say even some governments, that if we did not continue to have a strong labour movement in Canada, we would soon lose those gains that were hard fought and hard won over the last 100 or 150 years. That is why we on these benches are concerned to see a legislative environment that allows the union movement to thrive.

We hear sometimes that times were tough and we may have needed some unions to help with workplace conditions, but by and large really, prosperity just spontaneously came out of the industrial revolution. Forgotten in that account is that the organization of workers went hand in hand with that, and it was not until workers were organized that those gains actually came.

I think we need to be careful that we not give credit for the accomplishments of the labour movement to employers that would still be, and we know that they would still be, treating their workers in the way that they treated them in the 19th century. In parts of the world, the very same employers, operating in Canada in some cases, are treating their workers in other parts of the world as if it was the 19th century.

We would have to be very naive indeed to believe that, if there was not the legislative framework and if there was not the strong labour movement that we have had in Canada here, those same employers would not get the idea that maybe they could treat their Canadian workers that way too. I think we need to be very careful that we not attribute the good conditions and the good wages that some Canadian workers continue to enjoy to the benevolence of their employer, but acknowledge that those were gained hard fought and hard won.

I would say that in their more enlightened moments, some employers, like some of the employers that I am glad we have in the electrical industry in Manitoba, know that it has been overall good for them. It has created a customer base. Employees who have disposable incomes can afford their homes and are not worried about their families. They have child care. We can get into all the issues, but largely workers, well paid, well fed, and well housed are more productive, and that is good for Canadian employers.

Again, I think it speaks to the shame of the previous government that it would have sought unsolicited, except maybe by some employers, but certainly not by a groundswell of Canadian workers, to disrupt that partnership that had developed. This is not always easy. We had arrived at a place in Canada where at least some workers, and usually unionized workers, were getting a fair return on the work they did and that employers were benefiting from having those productive workers.

I do not think it is the place of a government to go and intentionally disrupt that. We can talk about what is in the particular context of those bills. I do not think it is very good, but certainly when we look at the larger context, that seems to be the case. It is one of the reasons I ran. I did not think we could tolerate having a government that bent on disrupting that relationship between the labour movement and employers and making sure that workers got their fair share. It is why I can hardly wait to stand in favour of the bill.