This bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.
MaryAnn Mihychuk Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-4s:
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Madam Speaker, my brief answer would be that they both set back labour relations, workers' rights, and health and safety. They worked in tandem. They were part of a larger agenda, and I am very proud to stand today to support the government's leadership here and to make those two bills history.
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk about Bill C-4.
Its purpose, of course, is to repeal the provisions enacted by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In other words, Bill C-4 aims to restore fairness and balance to labour relations. Throughout this process, there are some who worried about transparency. In fact, they claim that Bill C-4 attacks the transparency to which our government has committed itself. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All in this House know that our government is a champion for transparency. We are a government that is transparent, honest, and accountable to Canadians. We adhere to the most stringent ethical standards.
If we are talking about transparency, it is because this issue is of particular concern with regard to Bill C-377. Some think that the legislation was necessary to improve the financial transparency of unions. They say that it was required to guarantee public access to information on union expenses.
However, our government strongly believes that they are mistaken. Rather than improving transparency, Bill C-377 created additional privacy issues. Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament by the previous government despite loud opposition from many different groups, including Conservative and Liberal senators, constitutional experts, and certain organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association.
The previous government refused to listen to anyone, which is precisely why they are the previous government. We do things differently. We listen, and our efforts to improve labour relations in Canada were applauded by key stakeholders. The Public Service Alliance of Canada was pleased that our government tabled legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which this union believed was designed to weaken unions, was unconstitutional, and was a violation of privacy rights.
Canada's Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has expressed concerns with Bill C-377. In his view, publicly listing specific individuals' political and lobbying activities, as well as education, training, and conference activities, in accordance with Bill C-377 is overreaching.
Recently, he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, also known as HUMA.
I will take this opportunity to advise the House that I am splitting my time with the hon. and learned member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
If I may quote Monsieur Therrien from that committee, he said:
My role is to advise parliamentarians on the consequences that legislative measures can have on privacy. I do not have an opinion on the activities of labour organizations, specifically, but, like my predecessor, I have maintained all along that the provisions contained in Bill C-377 and its previous incarnations, went too far by imposing a public disclosure requirement. They were unreasonable and infringed on privacy rights.
Mr. Therrien continued as follows:
....transparency is not an end unto itself; it cannot be an absolute objective to the exclusion of other considerations....Transparency efforts must be carefully balanced with the need to protect the personal information of individuals.
I could not agree more.
Protecting personal information is something that Bill C-377 simply does not do.
To provide my hon. colleagues with more context, this legislation amended the Income Tax Act to require unions to provide the Minister of National Revenue with detailed information on their finances. More specifically, Bill C-377 forces labour organizations and labour trusts, including those under provincial jurisdiction, to provide information returns. These returns would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website.
Bill C-377 requires this information to include financial statements stating the total of all transactions, including certain transactions over $5,000 listed separately. These could include statements on their assets, debts, and expenses, and the salaries of certain individuals.
As if this were not enough, unions must also provide details on the time spent by certain individuals on political and lobbying activities and activities not related to labour relations. Worse still is that failure to comply with reporting requirements is considered an offence subject to a fine of $1,000 for each day of non-compliance, up to $25,000 per year.
Let me state clearly that Bill C-377 does nothing to add to the transparency of a union's affairs, and the former government knows this well.
To begin with, were this legislation to remain in place, employers would have access to a union's financial information, but the opposite would not be the case. In the collective bargaining process, unions would clearly be put at a disadvantage. For example, in the case of a work stoppage, an employer would know exactly how much money the union had in its strike fund, so it would know how long the union could hold out in the event of a strike. All the employer would have to do is wait until the strike fund was exhausted. That is unfair, unbalanced, and unreasonable. The union would be completely stripped of one of its key bargaining levers.
In addition, the strict disclosure requirements apply only to labour organizations and labour trusts and do not affect other groups that also receive beneficial tax treatment under the Income Tax Act.
This practice discriminates against unions and upsets the balance of labour relations across this country.
Lastly, provisions are already in place requiring unions to fulfill their financial reporting responsibilities. For example, section 110 of the Canada Labour Code requires unions and employer organizations to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge. There are similar provisions in most provincial labour relations legislation. Bill C-377 does nothing to add to this regulatory regime.
The reality is that the vast majority of unions already make their financial statements available to their members. These documents generally contain aggregated financial information and seem to meet the intended objective without it being necessary to name specific names. In other words, it protects privacy. Instead of promoting true transparency, Bill C-377 infringes on the right to privacy.
We should not force unions to provide detailed information on their finances. That is why steps have already been taken by the Minister of National Revenue to remove these obligations. As a result, during the repeal process, unions and other stakeholders affected by the bill are not required to submit detailed tracking of their activities for fiscal year 2016.
Balance is key. We need to be transparent, but we also need to respect privacy. Balance needs to be restored in relations between employees and employers. To that end, I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-4.
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, the member across the way quite correctly expressed concern that these regressive Conservative bills created an imbalance during work stoppages.
Another thing that creates an imbalance during work stoppages is the ability of employers to bring in replacement workers, because it allows the employer to lock out its employees and not incur the consequence of having to operate without the labour.
Therefore, based on the professed concern by the member for Newmarket—Aurora for balance in labour relations, I wonder whether the government would support anti-scab legislation.
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for the question. We always have good questions from this hon. member.
Our government is taking a tripartite approach to reviewing labour legislation across the country. Labour relations is an important issue that is fundamental to supporting the middle class in Canada. It is fundamental to making sure that Canadians have family-sustaining jobs. We are working toward that goal. However, the best way to do it is to work in consultation with all stakeholders, including all members of the House. I support our government in that effort. I know the hon. member does too, and we look forward to hearing his input in that process.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Liberals, I hear the word “transparency” time after time, but when it comes to action, they fail utterly. I want to give the House a couple of examples.
The First Nations Financial Transparency Act allowed band members, for the first time ever, to see how their chiefs and councils were spending their money, in the same sense that my constituents can see my expenses. The Liberals took a good piece of legislation and put the ability to see that information back into the dark.
We really still do not know what that little bag of cash is that apparently is going to be paid back for moving expenses. Again, the Liberals talk about transparency, but we have no idea what the extra bag of cash is.
For union members, it is an issue of transparency. Without having to go begging for the information, union members have the ability to have the audited financial statements of their unions.
Why do the Liberals say the word “transparency” so often, but when they have the opportunity to do something, they fail miserably?
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Madam Speaker, the member started her question by indicating that she had listened to the speeches, but I find that hard to believe, because if she had listened to my speech, she would realize how transparently unions already operate in this country.
The act was not meant to promote transparency. Let us be real for a minute here. These acts were meant to crush unions. That is the political ideology on that side of the House. Make no bones about it. It was used as a fundraising mechanism as well. It was not an act about transparency.
That being said, I will debate that member and any member across the floor on which government is more transparent. Our Prime Minister is the reason people in your riding can see your expenses and why they are posted online.
Let us not debate transparency. For nine years your government was the most opaque, hidden government in the history of Canada, and you have the audacity to stand in the House today and complain about transparency. Give me a break.
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I just want to remind the member when he is addressing the House about not using the word “you”.
There is not enough time for another question. Therefore, resuming debate. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Madam Speaker, I wish everyone a good afternoon and a happy Friday.
I am very proud and fortunate to stand here at third reading to support our government in moving forward this important piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would repeal Bills C-377 and C-525.
I spoke to this bill earlier, but I wanted to share my thoughts on Bill C-4 again, because I believe strongly in working to create a prosperous Canada, one in which the middle class and those looking to join it can grow and succeed. It was something I campaigned on last year and was a key plank in our government's election platform.
The two bills Bill C-4 seeks to repeal undermine labour unions and labour relations in our country, and in so doing, weaken our middle class.
Our government has an unwavering commitment to the middle class through initiatives like the Canada child benefit, which now sees nine out of ten Canadian families receiving higher monthly and tax-free benefits of approximately $2,300 a year; our middle-class tax cut, which reduced taxes for over nine million Canadians and will provide, over the next five years, approximately $20 billion in tax relief for Canadians; and recently, an historic agreement the Minister of Finance reached collaboratively with his provincial colleagues to expand and strengthen the Canada pension plan.
Our government is working to strengthen Canada's economy and to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed.
When I last spoke to Bill C-4, I talked about the importance of the bill in restoring a clear and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. I also talked about the fact that both my parents were union members. It was through the labour movement and its fight for fair wages and benefits that our family prospered in Canada. Frankly, it is one of the reasons I have the privilege to stand and speak in this House today.
I would like to focus my comments today on my personal connection to labour unions and their importance in helping create and sustain a strong middle class. However, before I do, I should probably provide some context and briefly explain the two bills that are to be repealed.
Bill C-377, which received royal assent in June 2015 and came into force at the end of 2015, created unnecessary red tape for unions and put workers at a disadvantage during the collective bargaining process. Bill C-525, which came into force on June 16, 2016, made it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified.
Both bills diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement, are counterproductive to a positive working relationship between employees and employers, and negatively impact the growth and prosperity of Canada's middle class.
The two bills Bill C-4 seeks to repeal were ideologically driven, not fact, and were aimed at undermining the effectiveness of labour unions across Canada from coast to coast to coast.
One bill, Bill C-377, places onerous and unfair reporting obligations solely on labour and not on any other organizations, be it professional or otherwise. The other bill, Bill C-525, changes the way unions are certified and decertified, making it harder for workers to organize.
There was no compelling need to make it harder on the labour movement and no sound economic argument for the Conservative changes to the Labour Code. In fact, it was quite the opposite.
Given the essential role unions play in fostering and maintaining a prosperous middle class and in protecting the rights of workers, needlessly upsetting the labour market relations system that has contributed significantly to the overall Canadian economy makes little economic sense.
I said that I would be focusing my comments on a personal connection to the labour movement. Those members who know me know that I am an economist and a former corporate and government debt analyst who worked on Wall Street and Bay Street for nearly 25 years. People might ask themselves why I would be such a strong proponent of Bill C-4. It is because professionally and personally I recognize the importance of balance in Canada's labour system not only in allowing workers to make free and informed decisions but in giving employers a degree of certainty and access to a skilled workforce.
If we want to see an example of the labour system working in balance, we can look no further than the recent negotiations between General Motors and Unifor. Through a transparent collective bargaining process, both sides have come to a tentative agreement that seeks to achieve the best interests of both parties: business and labour.
I will quote Jerry Dias, Unifor's national president, who stated:
“This framework puts into motion what will be a historic agreement to secure a future for our members, for our communities and for the auto industry in Canada,” said Unifor National President Jerry Dias, who led the negotiations.
We must always ensure that labour and business can bargain in an open and balanced process. The bills that are repealed in Bill C-4 tilted that balance and it was wrong.
In my constituency of Vaughan—Woodbridge, I see how a fair and balanced labour system allows LiUNA and the carpenters' union to work with their partners, helping to ensure the availability of an educated and skilled labour force. That collaboration has played a large role in the phenomenal growth in enterprises in the city I call home, Vaughan, throughout the GTA, and, frankly, all of Canada.
Over the summer, I attended a LiUNA industry awareness event at its training facility in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, where I saw first hand the training programs that LiUNA offers its members. LiUNA and its partners continue to train successive generations of workers who make Ontario a strong province and a beautiful place to call home. We must remember that unions like LiUNA continue to advocate for better health and safety conditions and strengthen pensions, which allow for a strong, prosperous, and growing middle class.
On a personal level, I also appreciate the importance of unions and a fair and balanced labour relations system. I was raised on the northwest coast of Canada in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, one of three boys, and both of my parents were union members. My father was a tradesperson, a carpenter and sheet metal worker. My mother, who, like my father, immigrated from Italy, worked in a fish processing plant. My parents came to Canada to build a better life and they brought with them the only asset they had: a work ethic and desire to build better lives for their family. With their union jobs, with benefits, good wages, and a safe environment, their aspirations for their family came true.
My parents instilled in me a very strong work ethic. Certainly those who know me, know I have carried that ethic with me proudly my entire life. They also instilled in me a very real understanding of the importance of unions and what decent wages and benefits meant to families.
In high school and while studying at university, I was a union member, working at the fish cannery, the Prince Rupert grain elevators and a pulp mill during the summers to help pay for my education. The work was not easy and the pay was not exorbitant, but it was a fair and decent wage. Because of the rules and oversight that unions helped to bring about, dangerous work environments were made safer.
Unions and their members are one of the backbones of the middle class in Canada. Union jobs enabled my immigrant parents to join the middle class. They allowed me the opportunity to pursue a higher education and, ultimately, with much happiness and privilege, it led me here to stand before the House of Commons.
I want to reiterate my full support for Bill C-4, our government's efforts to restore a fair and balanced labour relations system, and reaffirm my commitment to working toward creating and maintaining a prosperous Canada, one in which the middle class and those looking to join it can grow and succeed.
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, when I asked whether the government would support anti-scab legislation, the answer was that the government supported a tripartite process, which sounds sensible, unless what it means is that employers would have a veto on anti-scab legislation.
The other response we have heard in previous debates is that the government would only consider anti-scab legislation as part of a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. Could the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge tell us when his government is going to begin that comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member and I are both from the same province. Is he aware that every union certification that happens in the province of Ontario is done by secret ballot, except for the construction industry. Being from Ontario, why should it be any different federally and does he actually support the current practice in the province of Ontario for most unions, with the exception of the construction industry, to require a secret ballot for union certification?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Madam Speaker, one of the components in Bill C-4 in repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is that union financial disclosure is already addressed in Canada's labour code and many provincial labour statutes. Therefore, many of the provisions contained in Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were actually unnecessary. Also, the bill targeted only unions and not professional organizations.
With regard to the construction industry, there is a very healthy collective bargaining process that takes place in Ontario between the construction unions and their counterparties, and it has allowed the province to grow and prosper.
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and his support of this bill.
I agree with him that unions are important partners in our labour relations, which must be based on co-operation, transparency, and respect.
Bill C-4 seeks to restore fairness and balance in order to improve our labour relations with Canadian unions.
My question is quite simple. I would like to give the hon. member the opportunity to provide a few more examples of the benefits of this bill.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 would restore balance within the labour relations system in Canada, and we need balance. In any type of bargaining process, we need that system in place.
More important, for the broader economy, we need to have a transparent collective bargaining process take place, much like we saw with the recent Unifor negotiations and the recent CUPW Canada Post negotiations.
Frankly, the two bills that the previous government brought into place were unnecessary, basically attacked unions, and tilted the system in a way that upset the balance that was currently in place and was working fine.