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

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question and a great point that the member raises, because we saw that with the current Liberal government. The Liberals have already denigrated the ability for private members to bring forward a bill in this chamber, and to be able to bring forward the issues and concerns of their constituents and their ridings. That is a shameful thing.

They talk about the ruin of transparency from unions. They have done other things to remove transparency in terms of first nations leaders to their peoples. To take members of Parliament and denigrate the ability to bring forward a private member's bill does not sound like an open or transparent government to me. That sounds like a government that has its priorities completely dead wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this debate today; I do think this is very interesting. It has been mentioned by a few of my other colleagues that we have a critical situation in terms of Alberta and the issue around oil and the prices of energy. We have issues in Quebec in terms of Bombardier.

As a country, we have many important things that we need to be dealing with, so it is absolutely ironic that of the two first bills that the current government brings forward, one is “oops” a mistake. The Liberals made a promise about income tax. It was supposed to be revenue neutral, but it is a $1.4 billion oops. However, they are going to bring it forward anyway and add to the deficit by $1.4 billion. Then, of course, the next bill that the Liberals brought forward is a bill that would detract from accountability. It does speak to the priorities of the current government that the first two bills it brings forward are oops and lack of transparency.

I have an interesting history with these two bills, which might be a bit unique in this Parliament. I sat on the finance committee when Bill C-377 was going through committee. Then I also sat on the HRSCC committee as the parliamentary secretary for the minister of labour, as we dealt with Bill C-525. I had the benefit of hearing and really watching the progress of these bills as they went through the legislative process. I heard the opposition members stand up and talk about how this violated safety and privacy, and that people with their private health care information were going to be identified, or RCMP were going to be identified.

We did our jobs as legislators at that time, and we made a number of amendments. We heard some concerns from committees, and we did make amendments that dealt with those specific concerns. It really is a bit disingenuous when the members of the government stand up and say that this was going to violate health concerns, that information was going to be public. That was looked at and the bill was amended. I ask that they not go back to the original version when they are criticizing this bill. They need to go to the amended version, the one that was actually passed. I think that was certainly a fair point.

The Liberals talked about other professional organizations not being included. I think that is a fair point. I am a nurse by background. I was a member of the nurses' union and a member of the nursing association, so that is a fair enough point. Lawyers' associations and nurses' associations were excluded from the bill, and perhaps they should also be accountable for the same level of transparency.

The Liberals questioned why they were not included. Instead of gutting the bill, if that was their issue, why did they not just add those professional associations to the bill to create the same level of transparency for everyone? If the Liberals had some concerns, there were ways that they could have added things.

There were concerns mentioned in terms of the red tape. I am sorry, but in this age of computers, the ability to generate and submit reports has become very easy. I challenge anyone in this House to go to a special site on the website for the United States Internal Revenue Service, where people can see the information they need to see. This is not something that was dreamed up out of the blue. This has been in the United States for many years, and I do not think it created the big challenges and problems that people were speaking to.

I do recognize that some unions are very good about sharing information. I talked to people at the International Union of Operating Engineers, and they shared with me the reports that they publish annually. It was very comprehensive, fulsome, and available to all their members. Certainly there is no question that there are some great practices among our unions in terms of what they share.

However, I also think that this is important to point out, and this aligns with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. For a government that claims it is concerned about transparency, why does it insist that people have to ask for the information? First nations transparency is such that first nations have to go to the band office, or they have to go begging to the government for basic information, if it is not provided willingly, and it is not always provided willingly.

For the union members, many organizations, but not all, are good about sharing that information. We can imagine how intimidating it would be for a member of a union to go in to ask for that information. This should be disclosed to union members.

If the Liberals care about transparency and do not want this going through the Canada Revenue Agency, why did they not amend it to say that it had to be made available online or make some other changes? Obviously, this is not about transparency, but about a promise they made to get support in the last election. If they had concerns with respect to the bill, they could have made changes to deal with those.

Bill C-525 is really about the right to a secret vote. We have had examples given here today, and I would like to provide an example.

I worked in a very small facility where there were 20 employees in total. Under the old system, if one of those 20 employees were interested in certifying a union, which was perfectly within his or her right to do, he or she could have talked to his or her 10 friends, they could have had a card check and hit their 51% and would have automatically been unionized without the other nine people even having a voice in that conversation. It is totally outrageous that 11 people could certify a union without the nine others having the ability to even have a say.

The secret ballot is not for the unions or the employer, but the employee. Members can imagine how divisive the whole idea of certification would be in this small setting of 20 people. The people who worked there did not want their name on the list among the 11 who wanted certification or among the nine who would ask for decertification. They wanted to have a secret ballot because they did not want the union to know and did not want their boss to know. Therefore, having a secret ballot is a fundamental democratic right.

I would again ask the members of the government how they can suggest not having a secret ballot on something that is so profound and so personal, and leaves people open to all sorts of difficult circumstances. I think that to move away from the secret ballot was an incredible mistake.

I look at British Columbia. It has had the secret ballot there for many years, which has not led to any catastrophic results, but to comfort for the worker. This was not about the employer or about the union, it was about the worker.

The government also likes to say that it made it harder to certify and easier to decertify. What it did was create an even threshold so that 50 plus one will certify or decertify a union. I do not think that is a very outrageous thing to do.

In conclusion, we have heard that one of the top priorities of the current government is to move away from transparency and whether to do so formally. I must give the Liberals their due, because right now it is being done formally as we have this chance to debate the bill and hold the government to account, whereas on the First Nations Transparency Act we heard them talk in question period about how a law is a law is a law. However, to them a law is only a law if they like it. If they do not like it, as was the case with the First Nations Transparency Act, they will not enforce it. Therefore, I think they have put themselves in a really difficult position.

I am delighted to stand up and talk to this, but I am disappointed that if the Liberals had concerns, they did not just make this better but are instead choosing to gut it.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member admits that other organizations like medical associations, legal associations, and churches perhaps should have been included, and yet they were not included. Only unions were included.

How can the hon. member state that the bill was not in fact targeted at the labour movement?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill could easily have added a nursing association or a bar association.

I think it is absolutely absurd. We had a private member's bill that was presented. We looked at it. If we recall the rules of private members' business, we cannot make dramatic changes. We can make amendments, but we cannot make dramatic changes.

Again, if that was important to the Liberals, they should have added it. They should not have taken it away.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested that Bill C-377 is no big deal because it simply replicates something that exists south of the border.

Before the people of Regina—Lewvan elected me to this House, I worked as an economist for the United Steelworkers Union, which was indeed subject to disclosure requirements through the U.S. Department of Labor. I am here to tell the House that those went nowhere near as far as Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose and account for every transaction over $5,000.

Could the hon. member say that there would be any business in her riding or anywhere else in the country that would be prepared to comply with that sort of onerous administrative paperwork requirement?

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of the process, when the finance committee looked at the bill, we looked at the reports that were provided through, I think, IRS. We went online. To be quite frank, they were very fulsome, they were very detailed, and in actual fact in many cases, required more.

I have to remind the member that there were changes made that changed the initial bill to what it ultimately became. When he stands up and asks questions about the bill, he has to look at it in terms of the ultimate bill that was passed by this House.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a secret ballot is an act of democracy, and by removing it, we are giving a yield of comfort to union leaders, not to workers.

Does the member agree that Bill C-4 is the repealing of an act of transparency and accountability that we provided and introduced in the previous government?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, absolutely the most egregious part of the bill is removing the secret ballot.

I gave my example of 20 people with a certification drive, how personal the decision was, and how divisive it became. The fact that there was a secret ballot in this particular case, because it was under the B.C. labour code, was absolutely critical for the health of the workplace.

It is not about the employer. It is not about the union. It is about the worker.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member from the opposition party that our government was strongly opposed to this bill because it was not transparent and it was unfair to Canada's workers. We made an election promise about it that was in our platform.

To us on this side of the House, keeping our word is key to who we are as a party and that is why we are in government today.

Does my colleague agree that keeping our promises to Canadians is important to our party?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help myself. If I look at the government and its election promises, it is absolutely a ridiculous question.

I can start with a number of promises that the Liberals have broken: the revenue-neutral tax cut, broken; $10-billion deficit, broken. I could go on and on. To suggest that they all of a sudden have this desire and need to make sure they keep a promise that is not in the best interests of the worker is a little hard to believe.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the past two decades there has been a steady attack on the rights of working people in Canada. Nowhere has this attack been more evident than on organized labour.

Having spent nearly a decade fighting the attack by the former Conservative government, the NDP welcomes the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Today, I am proud to stand in the House in support of Bill C-4, a bill that would restore unions' rights to represent their members and to ensure that labour relations are respected.

In the last Parliament, despite public warnings from Canada's Privacy Commissioner, constitutional experts, and the Canadian Bar Association that these bills were very likely to be found unconstitutional, Bill C-377 became law anyway. Bill C-377 placed onerous, redundant, privacy-violating reporting burdens on unions.

Unions were already required to make their financial information available to all their members. While pushed under the guise of transparency, this sweeping bill would have had far-reaching consequences.

For example, anyone who took on a temporary contract with a union and was paid more than $5,000 would see their name disclosed on this database. Likewise, any company engaging in work with a union, such as a small business providing snow removal services, would see their company and the contract details posted publicly, potentially undermining their ability to negotiate other contracts. Let me say that in Ottawa, it snows quite a lot.

By the way, this ideological attack on unions did not come without a price tag. The parliamentary budget officer estimated that the Canada Revenue Agency would need approximately $21 million to establish this electronic database over the first two years and approximately $2.1 million per year to keep the database up to date and to maintain after that. That means repealing Bill C-377 would save Canadian taxpayers and unions millions of dollars per year.

With the passage of Bill C-4, we now would have the opportunity to put that money to better use, to protect Canada's rights as well as access to government services.

Some of my constituents struggle daily to make ends meet, even with a full-time job, some of them with multiple jobs. Others would like to work, but cannot access the workforce for a variety of reasons including their inability to secure affordable, quality child care. The savings from this could fund a number of much needed programs such as social housing, services for seniors, and programs for the most vulnerable.

Like Bill C-377, Bill C-525 was designed to weaken unions in Canada. It was a bill that aimed to solve a problem that in my opinion, did not really exist.

Bill C-525 amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employee and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to make it more difficult to certify a union and much easier to decertify one.

Prior to this bill, in order to trigger a union certification vote within the workplace, between 35% and 50% of the employees would have to sign a card indicating that they wish to become members of the union. Bill C-525 would have seen this threshold raised to 40%. Let me make it very clear, prior to Bill C-525, if 35% of employees signed a card, it only triggered a workplace vote, it did not automatically certify a union.

In order to certify a union during the card signing process, more than 50% of employees would still need to have signed a card indicating that they wished to be a member of the union. Their rights were respected and the process was legitimate. For workplaces that were already unionized, Bill C-525 attempted to make decertification of a union easier.

Bill C-525 would lower the threshold required to trigger a decertification vote to 40%. With these measures, it is clear to me that the attempt here was to make it more difficult to trigger certification and for simply ideological reasons.

New Democrats have long supported Canadians' right to freedom of assembly, as protected under the charter, as well as defending the value of the labour movement to working Canadians. It is no coincidence that as unionized rates in Canada have fallen, good-paying, stable, full-time jobs have gone with them. Collective bargaining has played an important role throughout history in ensuring that workers' rights are protected, that workers work in a safe environment, and receive fair pay and benefits for the value they bring to the workforce.

As these stable, secure jobs have been eroded in the workplace, what remain in Canada now are precarious ones, temporary contracts, and part-time work, which often are without benefits and have lower pay. Those are becoming the norm in today's workplaces. Just last year it was found that 52%, or over half, of all workers in Toronto, a major city in Canada, are in these precarious employment situations. Across Canada, these precarious positions are also disproportionately held by visible minorities and new Canadians, adding another barrier to their moving up the socio-economic ladder and achieving financial security for themselves and their families.

For a growing number of precarious workers, making ends meet is becoming increasingly difficult as the cost of living continues to rise and their wages do not keep up. Statistics Canada found that the lowest-earning 20% of Canadian households are now spending over 51% of their take-home pay just to cover essentials. Housing costs alone are now taking up nearly one-third of 20% of Canadian households' paycheques.

The impact of precarious work goes beyond the chequebook. Workers in precarious jobs are nearly twice as likely to report worse mental health than those in secure positions. The impact on people not knowing when their next shift is, of being subject to last-minute scheduling, and not knowing if they will still have jobs next month can lead to acute stress, poor nutrition, and weight gain. Studies have also shown now that workers are becoming trapped in precarious situations instead of moving on to stable, permanent positions. It is increasingly evident that they are stuck, going from contract to contract.

Employment instability, lower wages, and the lack of benefits have far-reaching impacts on Canadians and the economy. Poverty among seniors hit a historic low of under 4% in 1995 and that figure has begun to reverse as workplace pension benefits are eroded and Canadians struggle to save for retirement.

In 2013, poverty rates among seniors increased slightly to 11%. Poverty among seniors disproportionately impacts women, who are now experiencing poverty at the unacceptable rate of 30%. However, do not take the NDP or labour's word for it. Unionization was a key driving force in the past in addressing these issues. Indeed, in a study released just last year, the International Monetary Fund signalled a significant shift in approach, acknowledging that the role unions have historically played in addressing income inequality in society around the globe has been understated.

Research bodies are now showing that declining unionization rates are a significant factor in increasing inequality, especially among developed nations, including Canada. The IMF has now stated that the declining presence of unions has not only weakened the earnings and earnings potential of low- and middle-income earners, but that this has directly led to the rapidly increasing income share of the very highest earners, in particular, corporate managers and shareholders. Unions in Canada play a key role in the financial security of working Canadians and this can no longer be denied.

The Liberal government's decision to repeal these ideological pieces of legislation that would further harm the Canadian labour movement and the financial security of working Canadians is a welcome first step, but there is more to be done. The NDP will continue to push the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, to reinstate a federal minimum wage, and to enact anti-scab legislation and proactive pay equity legislation. New Democrats will push for the repeal of the former Bill C-4, instead of being satisfied with just the current promise to review it. This legislation is also likely to be found unconstitutional and was another example of ideologically driven legislation to undermine fair collective bargaining.

Canadians can be assured that the NDP will continue to fight for workplace rights and against growing income inequality in Canada. Reducing inequality and improving the financial security of everyday working Canadians needs to be a top priority for the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments shared with the House.

I will build on a couple of the points the member brought forward, and this is more of a comment than a question. The misnomer that the Conservatives continue to perpetuate this big union boss is really a fallacy. Many years back I was a former union member. I know the member's party has a number of former union leaders who are now in the House.

The reality of being involved in organized labour is that the strength is in the membership. In my home province of Nova Scotia, twice we have seen negotiating teams, for example, come to an agreement with the government, the NSGEU, the teachers union. They sat down and negotiated a deal. They brought it back to the membership, but the membership said no, that it was not the deal it wanted. The strength lies in the membership.

The member might want to comment on the fact that the whole thing about the big union bosses is far over-trumped by the former government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, in every union, the rank and file do have a say. They present their position to their duly elected representatives. I know the Conservative members would like to deem them as the union big bosses, but in reality they are duly elected by their membership to represent them and to bring forward their voices. That is the case for every union in our country.

In that sense, the grassroots of the membership is represented by its duly elected leadership, and the job of the leadership is to bring forward its membership voice on behalf of the members.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just spoke about the unions being all about the membership, and the rank and file. How can she defend taking away the right to a secret ballot as being respectful to that rank and file membership?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in terms of certification, the members sign a card, and that is their voice. When they reach the percentage that is required, then the workplace becomes unionized.

I will give the member an example. This is a real experience by my mother, who is now retired. When we emigrated to Canada so many years ago, my mom worked as a farm worker, making $10 a day. We did not know about unions, labour rights or anything like that. She worked long hours, and she made $10 a day to support a family of eight.

She later on graduated from that work, after two years, and became a minimum wage earner as a dishwasher in a restaurant. She worked hard and long hours as well. There was an attempt to unionize at that restaurant. My mother, who did not speak very much English, signed the card but understood the essence of what it meant and what was explained to her. Soon after the manager found out. Other employees who spoke better English were under threat, and there were real challenges. Ultimately, it collapsed because everybody feared for their jobs.

There are real issues in terms of intimidation with respect to that. When members of a workforce sign a card, and they sign it with the information of what the consequences are and what they hope to achieve in their workforce, that should be sufficient when it reaches the threshold to unionize a workplace.

What are unions for? They are there to protect workers, to ensure they have better working conditions. That is what it means. I think we all want to strive for that for all Canadians.