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]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that my colleague mentioned the trades of members of his riding. I would like to draw attention to something that Canada's Building Trades Unions put forward around this piece of legislation. It stated:

Canada's Building Trades Unions are very pleased with the introduction of repeal legislation for Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. [They] are pleased this is one of the first pieces of Government legislation introduced in the 42nd Parliament.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. Will he stand with unionized workers in his riding in the building trades, repeal this regressive legislation, and help grow the Canadian economy?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is confused that, because a union executive or entity has made a statement, it in any way reflects the views of its members. That is what we are talking about today—the disconnect between the executive and the workers. What the individual workers want is jobs. They want the ability to ply their trade. They want to weld two pieces of pipe together and make electrical circuits work. They want to put steel together into the form of pipelines.

In my riding, I had unionized members who were telling me when I got to the door that they were thinking about voting NDP, that their union executive invited the NDP candidate to the local and kind of talked about the labour laws and stuff like that. I said, “There is only one party in the House of Commons that supports new pipelines. If you work for a company that makes pipelines and you vote NDP you will have great labour legislation; there will be very powerful union executives and your union bosses may be able to do a whole lot of things that they were not able to do before, but you will be out of a job. Your union executives will still have a job.”

That is the irony here, that the last people to lose their job at a facility or a plant are usually the union bosses who negotiated themselves right there in the first place.

[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.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to debate this afternoon and I keep hearing the reference to the secret ballot. The speaker just before spoke about the need for a secret ballot so we could curtail certain activities of the union: political activities, advertising activities, even the setting of dues.

I went to the union that was referenced and I read their bylaws, available on Google. Every single person making a decision in that union is elected by secret ballot. I was wondering if the member opposite could provide further detail as to the use of the secret ballot as prescribed in both international and national organizations. How extensive is the use of the secret ballot in establishing union policies, union dues, union membership, as well as union executives who make the decisions on behalf of the delegated authority ascribed to them through a secret ballot, which will not be affected by this legislation in one way or another?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that in my union and in any one I have ever heard of, the leadership of the union is elected by secret ballot.

We hear about this alleged disconnect between the executive and the members, and certainly in any democratic institution there can be disconnect between those elected and the people who elect them. That might well have happened in some governments. I am not going to deny that it can happen from time to time. That can happen between shareholders and the board of a corporation. It can happen in all sorts of democratic contexts.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that in that context, just as in the general context, members have recourse. If they do not like what they see in their newsletter, they can get involved with their union. They can elect a different union executive. That is the recourse that we have.

At any time when members want to ask about how that money is being spent, they can ask that question and have access to that information.

When people belong to a democratic organization there is no substitute to being involved. This is not getting rid of secret ballots in unions. In fact it is not even necessarily getting rid of votes, but is just creating an option not to have one to avoid what we know are sometimes abuses by employers of employees.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of this across-the-aisle discussion between the Liberals and the NDP makes it seems like there is one party on this.

I found the comments by the member for Spadina—Fort York somewhat interesting. He said there were secret ballots sometimes. It reminds me of a play on a Mackenzie King quote, a secret ballot if necessary, but not necessarily a secret ballot.

Why would a secret ballot be okay for some votes for the executive and not for the certification vote itself? It is kind of fundamental to a democratic vote and the social democratic norms that the union movement tends to promote.

My question for the hon. member after his speech is as follows. I have listened to this debate intently and have spoken to many union members and labour leaders in my riding. I have still not heard one cogent argument to suggest why, in this modern age when transparency and disclosure is the norm, that for expenditures above the reasonable threshold of $5,000, the bright light of transparency would not be appropriate for this movement which people are required by law to pay dues into, as previous speakers have said?

What is feared about the bright light of transparency? I have not heard. The previous bills of the last government did not attack any of the fundamental rights of belonging to a union, and did not say that unions have not made some progress.

Why is this one organization exempt from basic, fundamental transparency? I am still waiting to hear an answer from that hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member would say that this one organization would be exempt.

In fact, by the Conservative argument, it is in part because there is a tax write-off on the dues, that unions are being publicly funded essentially and that is why they need to disclose this information. We provide tax write-offs to all sorts of businesses, and they are not required to disclose any purchases over $5,000. To to say that somehow unions are getting special treatment by not having to disclose expenses over $5,000 strikes me as kind of rich, frankly.

There are good reasons why, for instance, a union may not want to divulge the contents of a strike fund. If they want to be the hard-nosed economic people the Conservatives often claim they are, when there is a labour dispute and if employers knew they only had to wait three months for that strike fund to run out versus having to wait six months to a year, they could plan and prepare to ride that out. That would not be fair to the workers who are withholding their labour in order to get a fair deal for the work they do.

It makes all kinds of sense, just in the way I am sure the hon. member would be up, red-faced, on his feet, if we suggested that private companies ought to disclose any purchase over $5,000.

[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 firsthand 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.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, once again I googled the constitution that the member referenced, in terms of PSAC, and once again it found provisions for secret ballots all the way through the constitution. If a member of a union disagrees with a position taken by the executive, through secret ballot he or she can change that, unless of course the majority of the union disagrees with that individual.

The reason we refer to this as a back-door process is not that it is a private member's bill; it is because the changes that were being brought to independent democratic organizations were being done, not through a full parliamentary process, not through the full parliamentary debate to which government bills are subjected, but through a truncated one that the private members' bills go through. It is a different process, and to pretend otherwise is to pretend that this place does not treat private members' bills differently from government business.

My question for the member opposite is very simple. Secret balloting is available to him to change the platform and the policies of his union. Why did he choose to come to Parliament to affect the union business rather than stay in the union and affect it through the process guaranteed in the constitution to which he has signed on? Why did the member not stay in the union and change that with his membership, unless of course the members disagreed with him and disagreed with the bill that his party brought forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here in this House and no longer in the union, because I am proud to stand here on behalf of all Canadians and to work on behalf of Canadians to further their rights of openness and transparency for all union members.

The member talks about the secret ballot and PSAC, which leads to this question. If the secret ballot is throughout the constitution of PSAC and many other unions, why not for certification and decertification votes? It goes back to private members' business. I want to go back to that subject. Methinks the hon. member doth protest too much. Perhaps that is the way the Liberals' government is going to run their private members' business, just using it for matters that are not of great concern and for shuffling anything off to the side that they do not feel like discussing, through private members' business. However, I am proud to be part of a party that encourages all sorts of private members' business, and not just the ones that the hon. member opposite might think are appropriate to discuss as a private member's bill.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has mentioned a few times how proud he is to be part of a party that has democracy and transparency as a tradition, and I commend him for that. I am a democrat as well.

How does he feel about omnibus bills and the practice of the previous government in that regard?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier I heard the member say that, in 2012, he learned that his union was spending his dues on endorsing a separatist party in Quebec, which was against his wishes.

Did his union personally consult him before it decided what to do with his money?

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

The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I was not consulted on whether or not I thought my union dues or my union should be endorsing a separatist party in Quebec. Clearly my answer would have been completely different from my union's.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. I will let the hon. member for Prince Albert know that there are only about five minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders for the afternoon. I will give him the usual signal in five minutes. He will have the remaining time when the House gets back to debate on the question.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.