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

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time to give a speech in the House, I would like to begin by thanking my wife and children for being a solid support behind me. I would also like to thank my campaign team, specifically, my parents and my siblings, who put in countless hours on my campaign, my best friend Dennis, who set up way too many signs and put about 6,000 kilometres on his pickup truck, driving around the vast riding of Peace River—Westlock, and my campaign manager John for helping me win this seat. It was a spirited campaign and I appreciate their help.

I stand today to address the issue of union transparency and employee voting rights. If left as it is, Bill C-4 would repeal two pieces of legislation that workers across Canada fought hard to achieve. Unions, employers and, most important, the employees have all expressed their belief that the certification and decertification of unions should be determined in a free and democratic manner. Our country was founded on this same principle, that those who are governed have the right to make their choice by secret ballot, a method that removes fear and ensures that workers are free from the threat of intimidation by both employers and unions.

The Liberal Party wants to reverse this. It is wilfully ignoring workers across Canada who have stated that they want the right to vote in secret. All of us in the House represent a group of constituents. We are here by their consent and by their vote, which was cast free of harassment and according to their conscience. How can the Liberal Party not allow workers across Canada this same right?

Before the Employees' Voting Rights Act came into force, union certification was heavily weighted in favour of unions. A trade union was automatically certified if a majority of the employees simply signed a membership card. This process lent itself to manipulation and abuse. Without a secret voting system in place, both employers and unions held a position of power over the employee.

The Employees' Voting Rights Act changed that. It put unions and workers on a level playing field. Union certification is now done according to the free and secret votes of a majority. Employees make their decisions through the privacy of a secret ballot and are less subject to intimidation.

Prior to the act, a 35% threshold was needed to create a union in a federal jurisdiction. Interestingly enough, a 50% threshold was needed to decertify a union. Under the Employees' Voting Rights Act, a 40% threshold was set to trigger a vote either way. The act successfully put equal weight on both the certification and decertification process, giving workers the right to determine whether their workplace should be unionized.

If the Liberal Party repeals this act, it will strip a democratic right away from our nation's workers. Clearly, the Liberals believe union demands take precedence over the rights of workers.

To expand on this topic, I have a number of concerns.

Many members of the House will agree that, historically around the world, positions of power can give rise to the abuse of power. Without checks and balances, the rights of workers are, without exception, open to abuse. This is the reason why democratic governments worldwide have legislation in place governing the certification of unions.

Preventing abuse of power is not a new concept. At the federal level, the United States uses secret ballot voting to determine union certification. The unions use secret ballot voting as a means of electing their union leaders. Polls among union and formerly unionized employees have consistently shown 83% to 89% support for secret ballot voting. This system is a widely-accepted method of determining certification.

Why does the Liberal government want to repeal a law that keeps Canadian workers free from pressure, manipulation or intimidation from unions or employers?

It is interesting to note that five provinces already use secret ballots to determine certification. If the Liberal government repeals the Employees' Voting Rights Act, federally regulated workers will once again have fewer democratic rights than their provincial counterparts. Who wins in this scenario? Before the Employees' Voting Rights Act existed, union organizers and management held an unfair advantage over Canadian workers. If this law is repealed, it is the Canadian worker who loses. Any time a democratic right is repealed, our nation as a whole loses.

Bill C-4 poses another problem. It seeks to repeal a requirement for labour organizations to be financially transparent. Financial transparency is the bedrock of financial accountability. Why does the Liberal government seek to undermine worker and taxpayer rights to financial accountable unions? There is a public interest in this. Union fees reduce taxes and therefore affect all Canadians.

Union workers pay union dues, yet without this legislation in place, unions are not obligated to tell workers where and how this money was spent. Before and during the federal election, unions spent millions of dollars to fight the Conservative Party. Taking away financial transparency is nothing more than a Liberal measure to thank unions.

Again, who is the biggest loser if this law is repealed? The worker, the taxpayer, and our country. We are a nation that demands financial accountability of our federal, provincial and municipal governments, and our charities. Unions enjoy a wide range of tax benefits, and this special treatment impacts all Canadians.

I am sure each member of the House would stand by and proclaim the belief in the principles of transparence, accountability, and democracy. Yet, with the bill, the Liberal Party would do the exact opposite.

Let me be clear. This law does not regulate the activities of unions. Nor does it mandate how it spends their money. It does not violate any of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What it does do is ask for limited disclosure of salary, benefits, and paid time spent on political activities. In short, it is the voice of the workers asking how the union is spending their money.

Financial transparency legislation for unions is not new. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and France all have this legislation in place. The Canadian labour organizations headquartered in the United States must already disclose financial information to the American government. Transparency is a deterrent. It is a means to keep abuse in check. It is a way to protect against corruption. Quite frankly, the fact that some unions and the Liberal Party wish to repeal this law leads me to question why. What are they hiding?

It may be in the interest of the House to know that in the United States, similar legislation led to more than 900 criminal convictions for inappropriate and fraudulent activity.

Unions in Canada receive public benefits. The taxpayers have a right to know how their money is spent. Union members have a right to know how their union dues are spent, and whether they are spent wisely and effectively. Currently this is the case. If Bill C-4 goes through as it is, Canadian workers and taxpayers will suddenly be left in the dark. Financial transparency is a good public policy. Secret ballot voting is a democratic right.

Bill C-4 is flawed. It seeks to repeal what Canadian workers and taxpayers have fought to put in place. Members of the House should remember that these same workers and taxpayers are the ones who chose them to represent them in the House.

I ask members to vote against the bill. When the rights are stripped away from Canadian workers, we all lose.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member will have five minutes for questions and comments when debate resumes.

The House resumed 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the question, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock had five minutes remaining for the period for questions and comments. We will go to that now.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to reflect on the past election, when the leader of the Liberal Party committed to restoring balance in the labour legislation that the Conservative Party had brought in via two private members' bills without proper consultation and without going through the normal process of working with different stakeholders. That is why we have this bill before us today.

I am asking if the member would, at the very least, recognize that the legislation he will in all likelihood vote against is here to rectify a wrong by the previous Conservative government and that to do so was election commitment by our leader? Would the member be suggesting that the government not keep its election commitment?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started his question by referencing private members' bills, a very important aspect of this whole debate. During the last Parliament, unprecedented numbers of private members' bills were passed, which speaks to the level of democracy in this place then. Everyone was able to bring forward things they were passionate about and that spoke to their ridings. The member may correct me, but if I am correct, 42 private members' bills were passed in the last Parliament. That was unprecedented, so when the member talks about being democratic, that was being democratic.

Democracy is essentially all about votes, and a secret ballot vote is the pinnacle of democracy. However, there are many other things that come with living in a democratic society. Some of those include freedom of association, the freedom of expression, and other such things. Those are the other aspects that must come into play.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the secret ballot component, because that is one of the most egregious changes in this bill. A secret ballot protects the employee. It is not in favour of the union. It is not in favour of the employer. It is something that would allow the member employee to exercise his or her democratic rights in private.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about the importance of that component of the legislation that we are moving back from.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly correct when she says that we are standing up for workers' rights. We are the only party that stands up for the Canadian worker. Both of the other parties are in bed with the unions and would essentially like to see all of Canadian society unionized.

It is interesting that earlier in this debate, one of the members mentioned that we should have mandatory times when organizations should have a vote to see if they want to be unionized. It is an interesting idea, but I have not seen if that is something they wanted. Do unions from time to time have a vote to see if everyone wants to continue with the union? That is one of the things I have never seen, and I do not think it will be a viable option.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the discussion today, talking about workers, I would like to say that I am a former carpenter. I still am a carpenter. I still have my card that I carry in my wallet today. My dad was a former union carpenter. The member who just spoke is an auto mechanic.

We are workers ourselves. In the context of our debate today, we have real experience with the groups and want to see what is good for the workers as opposed to the unions that are above them.

I just want to ask the member a question. In terms of the Liberal platform where they talked about accountability, is this offside with that policy or not?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, accountability is one part of the bedrock of our democratic society.

I think the Liberals are way offside, calling this accountable.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-4. Of course it goes without saying that I will be supporting this bill at second reading.

We spent the last 10 years under constant attack from the previous Conservative government with respect to workers' rights. Obviously I will be talking about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were introduced in the previous Parliament. I will come back to them later in my speech.

There have been flagrant examples in recent years. It was almost an obsession. I am talking about the Conservative Party's attitude towards the workers at Canada Post and the CBC, just to name a couple. I think some people, especially on this side over here, often forget the many benefits brought about by unionization.

For example, a unionized worker earns on average five dollars more an hour than a non-unionized worker. Among women, that gap is even wider at $6.65 an hour. This translates into greater purchasing power and more money going back into the economy. Basically, it is good for everyone. This is not rocket science. I would also remind the House that we do not hear stories about tax havens when it comes to these kinds of wages and workers.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to repair the damage from the Conservatives' attacks against workers. First, it prevents legal challenges. According to our analysis and that of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Bill C-377 went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts would no doubt have annulled that bill because it violated the right to the freedom of association and violated the privacy of those who work for a union.

I find it rather insulting that the previous government decided to introduce a bill that it knew was easily revocable by a court. Why do that? Was it out of ideology, or flagrant disregard for workers and our institutions, including our courts? Maybe it was a cheap fundraising stunt on the backs of its supporters. We know that the Conservatives have a penchant for that type of thing. Unfortunately, we will never know, but fortunately we are here to undo the previous government's dirty tricks.

The Conservatives may have claimed that they introduced the bill in the hallowed name of transparency, but what they failed to say is that unions were already required to report their financial information to their members. That is a rather important detail that we do not often hear the Conservatives talk about.

Bill C-377 imposed detailed and costly reports and requirements on the unions. The Conservatives pushed the bill through, despite general opposition from the public, including constitutional law experts, the NHL Players Association, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, which takes some doing, privacy experts, the Canadian Bar Association, and so on. We are not the only ones who are pleased to see Bill C-4 before the House and to see it pass quickly.

According to the parliamentary budget officer's estimates, implementing Bill C-377 would have cost much more than the $2.4 million that the Conservatives planned to give the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA would have spent almost $21 million in the first two years to create the electronic database required and approximately $2.1 million annually to maintain the system. I have not even touched on all the hours that the unions would spend to meet these requirements, which would be added to their workload, instead of protecting workers' rights.

Therefore, the repeal of Bill C-377 will save millions of dollars for both the government and the unions. I would like to quote the national president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents NDP employees:

UCFW is pleased to see the government tabling Bill C-4. Our union campaigned vigorously against the Conservative Government's Bill C-377 in the last parliament. The bill was undemocratic, and part of the Conservative government's campaign against workers and workplace democracy. It was also a major invasion of the privacy of individual union members and it infringed on provincial jurisdiction over labour issues. Repealing Bill C-377 is positive for all Canadians as this bill would have been expensive for the government to implement and monitor.

That is what I wanted to say about one-half of Bill C-4. As for Bill C-525 , it sought to make it harder for workers to organize, while making it easier to decertify unions. What struck me about the bill at the time was that it was completely unfounded.

The government made changes to the labour laws without even proving that the old union accreditation method was a problem. I will summarize the facts.

About 10% of workers currently fall under federal jurisdiction. They are represented by a number of unions, such as public service unions, Unifor, and trade and construction unions. Before, a union was automatically accredited when more than 50% of workers signed a card indicating that they wanted to unionize. When 35% to 50% of workers signed a membership card, an election was triggered to determine whether the workers truly wanted to unionize. Bill C-525 wanted to change the threshold for triggering an election for accreditation from 35% to 40%. Furthermore, it would have also banned the automatic card check certification system.

This is yet more evidence of the previous government's disdain for workers' rights. This backwards attitude ignores the fact that, for example, the wage increases negotiated by the union inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the Canadian economy every week.

I want to get back to what I was saying earlier. One of the advantages of unionization is that it injects more money into the economy. When people earn higher wages, they consume more. We are talking about regular people, not Bay Street CEOs, who earn astronomical salaries and then send that money to some far-away island.

I applaud this bill from my colleagues opposite, who made a good decision to start their term by repealing these two harmful bills. That is a good sign. However, we must remain cautious, because this is only a sign. In recent years, my colleagues opposite waxed on and on about standing up for the middle class, but I must say that their definition of the middle class, which they are using for the tax cuts they promised during the campaign, is flawed. The threshold they use is rather arbitrary.

I would now like to talk about this dangerous new bug that everyone in the current Liberal government seems to have contracted, and that is “consultitis”. That is all well and good, and I understand that some issues require a lot of discussion and consultation with experts. However, there are also some issues that have obvious answers. The government could save time on those rather than getting caught up in this constant consultation. That is what I mean by “consultitis”.

The government needs to protect the middle class by taking meaningful action, not by spouting rhetoric and launching public consultations left and right. We have heard enough about consultation since this government took office. Talk is all well and good, but it does not put food on people's tables.

I therefore urge the Liberals to do more, to take more meaningful action. The benefits of doing so are tangible and easily verifiable, so let us get started.

The NDP will continue to exert pressure on the government to reinstate the federal minimum wage and vote in favour of the anti-scab bill introduced by my colleague from Jonquière. It is a common sense initiative, as is pay equity, obviously.

I find it very frustrating that problems like the ones I mentioned, which were identified decades ago, are still wreaking such havoc. Canada is a progressive country, which is obvious from our general attitude on thorny issues such as physician-assisted dying. However, I find that we sometimes drag our feet for no apparent reason. Everyone here recognizes that women and men are equals, but that belief is not reflected in our economy, where we see wage disparities that make no sense.

In closing, I realize that there are a lot of messes to clean up. After a decade under the Conservative dinosaurs, there is a lot of work to be done. That decade put us on guard. The NDP will certainly not be giving the Liberals a blank cheque, since everyone knows that they have a tendency to signal left during the election and then turn right once they take office.

Unequal distribution of wealth is not just theoretical. It is a very real problem that is beyond comprehension in a country as wealthy as Canada. Decent working conditions and decent pay are good for everyone. We all know the harmful and devastating effects of poverty. I am proud to belong to a political party that understands these issues and refuses to compromise when it comes to implementing effective measures to truly eradicate poverty and poor working conditions, which have no place in a country like Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that this piece of legislation was brought in to rectify a wrong, that is, the substantial changes to the labour legislation the Conservatives brought in through the back door via the use of private members' bills. It is a fulfilment of an election promise. We appreciate the support from the New Democrats.

I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in 1988. There was a premier just before my time whose name was Howard Pawley. He promised the union movement that he would bring in anti-scab legislation, the type of legislation that the member's party is suggesting that we vote for now. Through negotiations with the stakeholders, the NDP provincial government at the time came up with the idea that we should not have anti-scab legislation and brought in final offer selection as a compromise.

The question I have for the member is this. When he reflects on his comments with respect to the Conservative private members' bills, does he not believe that there is an obligation to work with labour and management in coming up with legislation? It seems to me that the New Democrats are attempting to do something for which they were critical of the Conservative Party doing last year. When we factor in that the NDP attempted to bring in anti-scab legislation, which did not work because it was the NDP that ultimately said no to the anti-scab legislation while they were in the quarters of power in Manitoba, where the strike of 1919 took place, and so forth, does he not recognize that there is a need to consult with labour and management?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that some things do not change from one election to the next. Some members, such as the gentleman opposite, have a real way with words. He is very competent and has a great deal of experience in politics.

That is an example of what I was lamenting, the fact that what we have is a lot of words but what we need is to act quickly. We have to take care of issues like these. That is why I am offering him my wholehearted support, because we agree. Just talking is pointless. That is not what Canadians expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree, let us not talk just for the sake of talking. Let us get to the bottom of the issue.

I listened to the NDP member's remarks, and I want to salute and thank him. He said he supports Bill C-4 almost unconditionally.

Bill C-4 eliminates a secret ballot. Secret ballot voting is fundamental to democracy. That is how we, the members of the House of Commons, were elected. It is also a fact that we, the Conservatives, are not the only ones who think this way.

Here is what Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada had to say on February 11, 2013, and I would like to point out that there is no connection between that organization and the Conservative Party:

...PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples.

Why are the New Democrats, who were all elected by secret ballot, opposed to the secret ballot voting in our proposals?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some things change from one election to another. We have new MPs, like that member who was just elected. I want to congratulate him on his great energy. He is diving into his new role with a great deal of conviction.

That being said, I also invite him to be a little more subtle when it comes to the support he gives to former members and the policies of a former government. Many are starting to qualify their statements, saying they did not share those views.

Some awful things happened when his party was in power, and those two parts of the legislation were absolutely atrocious. The member continues to single out this one small aspect, although the general principle completely disrespected workers.

It was part of the general attitude that prevailed for the 10 years of Conservative power, and I hope that the member will help change what that party represented for the past 10 years.